p. 1 183 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-19955-2026 Date of decision :06.07.2026 Gurnam Kaur (now deceased) thr. Her LR and another ...... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & ors. ..... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN *** Present :- Mr. J.K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) By way of present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 18.03.2024 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, and the order dated 25.03.2022 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot, whereby the order dated 15.02.2018 passed by District Collector, Bathinda has been upheld. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is a question of title involved, yet the authorities have proceeded with the partition proceedings. Reference has been made to order dated 12.06.2017 (Annexure P-3) passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade dismissing the objection raised by the petitioners. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the order is cryptic and non-speaking order, yet the appellate as well as the revisional authorities have upheld the same. POOJA SHARMA 2026.07.10 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document p. 2 4 On being asked as to how the question of title is involved, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the present petitioners, the land already stood partitioned in a family settlement about 50 years back and all the co-sharers were put in their respective portions and thus the present partition proceedings cannot be continued more so when a civil suit is already pending. 5 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and after carefully perusing the records of the case, this Court finds that the present writ petition sans merit and deserves to be dismissed. The moment the petitioners claim that the land already stands partitioned, it can be well inferred that the jointness of estate is not disputed. The petitioners claim that the jointness stood severed 50 years ago as there was a partition owing to family settlement. Admittedly, the said private partition was neither incorporated in the revenue record nor was reduced into a registered instrument. 6 In view thereof, this Court finds that the Revenue Authorities have rightly held that there is no question of title involved and thus have continued with the partition proceedings. 7 Finding no merits in the present petition, the same is ordered to be dismissed. ( PANKAJ JAIN ) 06.07.2026 JUDGE Pooja Sharma-I Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No POOJA SHARMA 2026.07.10 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document