Kuldeep Singh Son of Malkit Singh Vs Financial Commissioner Appeals and Others

Petition herein is, inter alia , seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 15.10.2019(Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Naib Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, Makhu, Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepur; order dated 26.11.2020 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Collector, Zira, as well as order dated 13.02.2026(Annexure P-3) passed by learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab.

¶14

Briefly, respondent No.4-Bachan Kaur (daughter of Malkeet Singh, and wife of Dial Singh), sought partition of joint land comprising Khewat Nos.137 & 138 (as per jamabandi for the year 2012-2013, situated in the area of Village Joge Wala, Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepur). It appears that initially the present petitioner did not appear in the partition proceedings, however, subsequently, he appeared through his counsel, namely, Shri Inderjeet Singh Dhanju on 24.09.2018. In the partition proceedings, the mode of partition came to be proposed on 18.02.2019; however, since the petitioner did not raise any objection to the mode of

¶15

ANJAL GUPTA 2026.05.01 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CWP-11889-2026

¶17

partition, the same came to be approved. On the basis of the approved mode of partition, Naksha Arra was called for and upon receipt of Naksha Arra on the Court file, the objections of the respective parties were called thereon.

¶18

It is not disputed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner did not raise any objection to the Naksha Arra; accordingly the same was approved. On the basis of the approved Naksha Arra, even Naksha Erri was prepared and final order of partition dated 15.10.2019 (Annexure P-1) was passed.

¶19

The present petitioner challenged the final order of partition dated 15.10.2019 (Annexure P-1) by filing an appeal before the learned Collector, Zira, on the plea that in the partition proceedings, his share has not been separately carved out. The aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the petitioner was duly considered and rejected by the learned Collector by observing that since the petitioner did not raise any demand before the learned Assistant Collector for separating his share by carving out a separate khewat for him, therefore, there was no illegality or perversity in the final partition order dated 15.10.2019 (Annexure P-1). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the present petitioner was rejected by the learned Collector vide order dated 26.11.2020 (Annexure P-2).

¶20

Still dissatisfied against the aforesaid orders, the petitioner preferred a revision ( ROR No.30 of 2021 ) before the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 13.02.2026 (Annexure P-3).

¶21

ANJAL GUPTA 2026.05.01 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CWP-11889-2026

¶23

(3)

¶24

9.1. In my considered view, once the petitioner duly appeared in the partition proceedings, however, he chose not to get his share separated in the partition proceedings, no fault can be found with the final order of partition wherein a separate khewat of the petitioner has not been carved out. Accordingly, the first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is rejected. 10. As regards the second contention that in the partition proceedings, even the Abadi area has been included; suffice it to observe that as per the jamabandi for the year 2012-13 (Annexure P-9), the land comprised in rectangle No.58, khasra no.11, is measuring 08 kanals, out of which 03 kanals is recorded as Gair Mumkin Abadi and the remaining 05

¶25

ANJAL GUPTA 2026.05.01 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

CWP-11889-2026

¶27

(4)

¶28

kanal area has been recorded as chahi. Since the aforesaid killa no.58//11 is

¶29

a part of joint land, therefore, the same had to be included in the partition application. However, it is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the final partition, the Abadi area has not been partitioned by the Revenue Authorities and the same has been retained as it is, inasmuch as that the Abadi area of the petitioner has been allocated to his share only and not to anybody else.

¶30

In view of the above, since the killa nos.58//11 & 61//9/1 are of ‘mixed use’; which is also joint between the parties alongwith the other killa numbers mentioned in the khewat under the partition, there is no error in including the said area in the partition application, however, the fact remains that the Gair Mumkin Area has not been partitioned by the Revenue Authorities. Accordingly, the second contention of the petitioner is also rejected.

¶31

No other argument was raised.

¶32

¶33

27.04.2026 (HARSH BUNGER) Anjal JUDGE

¶34

Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶35

ANJAL GUPTA 2026.05.01 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Kuldeep Singh Son of Malkit Singh v. Financial Commissioner Appeals and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Singh Son of Malkit Singh v. Financial Commissioner Appeals and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narinder Pal Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Harjit Kaur etc. Vs State of Pb etc.

Harpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Gagandeep Singh @ Laddi and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Others

Bahadur Singh Vs State of Punjab through Its Secretary Cum Financial Commissioner

Manoj Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others