CWP-14979-2026 [123] Gurpal Singh and others Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others Coram : Present: PANKAJ JAIN [1] Takseem dated 08.08.2017. [2] owners of land measuring 136 kanals 18 marlas comprised in joint The predecessors and Mukhtiar Kaur joint land before the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade on 10.09.1982 (Annexure P (Annexure P issued. Bhagwan Kaur, the predecessor challenged 2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-14979 Date of Decision : Gurpal Singh and others versus Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Mr. K.S. Chahal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Harinder Pal Singh Ishar, Addl. AG, Punjab. Ms. Milan, Advocate and Mr. Ravish Bansal, for respondent No.3. Mr. Gourav Goel, Advocate Mr. Tejinder Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos.24 & 25-Bank. **** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners assail dated 08.08.2017. The petitioners along with respondent Nos.3 to 21 are joint owners of land measuring 136 kanals 18 marlas comprised in joint The predecessors-in-interest of respondent Nos.3 to 9, namely Kak and Mukhtiar Kaur @ Taro, filed an application seeking partition of joint land before the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade on 10.09.1982 (Annexure P-3). The mode of partition was sanctioned on 16.06.1983 nnexure P-4). Sanad Takseem dated 01.09.1986 issued. Bhagwan Kaur, the predecessor challenged the said Sanad Takseem dated 01.09.1986 by way of Civil Suit IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 14979-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision : 02.09.2026 …Petitioners Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others ….Respondents PANKAJ JAIN Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Harinder Pal Singh Ishar, Addl. AG, Punjab. and Mr. Ravish Bansal, Advocate and Advocate Bank. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners assail Sanad The petitioners along with respondent Nos.3 to 21 are joint owners of land measuring 136 kanals 18 marlas comprised in joint khewat interest of respondent Nos.3 to 9, namely Kaku Singh , filed an application seeking partition of joint land before the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade on 10.09.1982 ode of partition was sanctioned on 16.06.1983 dated 01.09.1986 (Annexure P-5) was issued. Bhagwan Kaur, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners dated 01.09.1986 by way of Civil Suit 1 Sanad The petitioners along with respondent Nos.3 to 21 are joint khewat. Singh , filed an application seeking partition of the joint land before the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade on 10.09.1982 ode of partition was sanctioned on 16.06.1983 was interest of the petitioners, dated 01.09.1986 by way of Civil Suit RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.09.10 10:45 I agree to specified portions of this document CWP-14979-2026 No.227 of 1992. The same was decreed 15.06.1999 aside. The parties were granted liberty to get partition accordance with pursued the earlier application [3] 16.03.2015, which finally culminated in (Annexure P against the same before SDM order dated 23.10.2017 (Annexure P appeal, impugning Annexure P was dismissed vide order dated 23.03.2021 (Annexure P [4] Financial Commissioner, Punjab. The same has been allowed vide order dated 16.03.2026 (Annexure P [5] submits that in terms of the order passed by were granted liberty to get the partition as per sanctioned mode of partition. Thus, a fresh contends that and decree passed by the [6] through record of the case. [7] (Annexure P 2026 (O&M) No.227 of 1992. The same was decreed 15.06.1999 (Annexure P-6). Sanad Ta aside. The parties were granted liberty to get partition accordance with the sanctioned mode of partition. he earlier application for partition. Respondents filed a fresh application for partition dated 16.03.2015, which finally culminated in (Annexure P-9) and Naksha ‘Jeem’. Respond against the same before SDM (Collector order dated 23.10.2017 (Annexure P-10). Respondent Nos.3 & 4 filed an appeal, impugning Annexure P-10 before the Commissioner. The same was dismissed vide order dated 23.03.2021 (Annexure P Respondent Nos.3 & 4 preferred Financial Commissioner, Punjab. The same has been allowed vide order dated 16.03.2026 (Annexure P-2). Counsel for the petitioners has raised submits that in terms of the order passed by were granted liberty to get the partition as per sanctioned mode of partition. a fresh application for partition was not maintainable. He further contends that Sanad Takseem having been issued, ignoring the judgmen decree passed by the Civil Court, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through record of the case. A bare perusal of the judgment and decree dated 15.06.1999 (Annexure P-6) would reveal that while decreeing the suit fi No.227 of 1992. The same was decreed vide judgment and decree dated Sanad Takseem dated 01.09.1986 was set aside. The parties were granted liberty to get partition effected sanctioned mode of partition. None of the parties partition. Respondents filed a fresh application for partition dated 16.03.2015, which finally culminated in Sanad Takseem dated 08.08.2017 Naksha ‘Jeem’. Respondent No.11 preferred an appeal Collector). The same was accepted vide 10). Respondent Nos.3 & 4 filed an 10 before the Commissioner. The same was dismissed vide order dated 23.03.2021 (Annexure P-11). ferred a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Punjab. The same has been allowed vide order Counsel for the petitioners has raised a two-fold plea. He submits that in terms of the order passed by the Civil Court, the parties were granted liberty to get the partition as per sanctioned mode of partition. partition was not maintainable. He further having been issued, ignoring the judgmen not sustainable in the eyes of law. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone judgment and decree dated 15.06.1999 would reveal that while decreeing the suit filed by the 2 vide judgment and decree dated dated 01.09.1986 was set effected in None of the parties Respondents filed a fresh application for partition dated dated 08.08.2017 nt No.11 preferred an appeal was accepted vide 10). Respondent Nos.3 & 4 filed an 10 before the Commissioner. The same revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Punjab. The same has been allowed vide order fold plea. He t, the parties were granted liberty to get the partition as per sanctioned mode of partition. partition was not maintainable. He further having been issued, ignoring the judgment not sustainable in the eyes of law. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone judgment and decree dated 15.06.1999 ed by the RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.09.10 10:45 I agree to specified portions of this document CWP-14979-2026 plaintiff and against sanctioned mode of partition, liberty was granted to the petitioners to get the land partitioned in accordance wi partition. Thus, the earlier application for partition was never decided on merits. In these circumstances, the plea raised by counsel for the petitioners that the fresh application for partition be accepted. Trite it is that the parties joint in holding file application seeking separation of their shares by way of partition. There being no earlier order of filing a fresh a [8] Sanad Takseem order passed by the Civil Court Admittedly, neither at the time of the time of Thus, it is too late in Takseem, which is based upon inviting objections from the parties. [9] to be dismissed. [10] off. 02.09.2026 ‘R. Sharma' 2026 (O&M) and declaring the earlier Sanad Takseem against sanctioned mode of partition, liberty was granted to the petitioners to get the land partitioned in accordance wi partition. Thus, the earlier application for partition was never decided on merits. In these circumstances, the plea raised by counsel for the petitioners that the fresh application for partition be accepted. Trite it is that the parties joint in holding file application seeking separation of their shares by way of partition. There being no earlier order of fresh application for partition of the The objection with regard to disturbance of possession Sanad Takseem dated 08.08.2017 (Annexure P order passed by the Civil Court is also sans Admittedly, neither at the time of sanctioning of the time of finalization of Naksha Bay, Thus, it is too late in the day for them to turn around and object , which is based upon Naksha Bay inviting objections from the parties. Finding no merit in the present writ petition dismissed. All pending miscellaneous application(s), i 02.09.2026 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable Sanad Takseem to be null and void being against sanctioned mode of partition, liberty was granted to the petitioners to get the land partitioned in accordance with the sanctioned mode of partition. Thus, the earlier application for partition was never finally decided on merits. In these circumstances, the plea raised by counsel for the petitioners that the fresh application for partition is not maintainable cann be accepted. Trite it is that the parties joint in holding an estate can always file application seeking separation of their shares by metes and bounds way of partition. There being no earlier order of partition, there is no bar in the joint holding. The objection with regard to disturbance of possession and the (Annexure P-9) being in violation of sans merit and cannot be accepted. sanctioning of the mode of partition nor at , the petitioners filed any objection. them to turn around and object to the Sanad Naksha Bay, which was finalized after Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same is ordered All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No : Yes / No 3 to be null and void being against sanctioned mode of partition, liberty was granted to the petitioners sanctioned mode of finally decided on merits. In these circumstances, the plea raised by counsel for the not maintainable cannot an estate can always metes and bounds by no bar in and the being in violation of the merit and cannot be accepted. mode of partition nor at the petitioners filed any objection. Sanad , which was finalized after same is ordered disposed RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.09.10 10:45 I agree to specified portions of this document