Judgment S.S.Saron, J. 1. CM Nos. 13454-55 of 2009 Reply filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 5 to 7 to the Civil Misc. application in Court today is taken on record. Reply on behalf of respondents Nos. 8 to 14 has already been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the parties have stated that they are ready for arguments and the main ease be heard accordingly. Therefore, CM, Nos. 13454- 55 of 2009 praying for stay are dismissed as not pressed. CWP No. 490 of 2009 The petitioners are aggrieved against the orders dated 26.5.2006 (Annexure P2), 29.12.2006 (Annexure P3), 22.11.2007 (Annexure P4) and 6.8.2008 (Annexure P5) passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade Dera Bassi (respondent No. 4); Collector, Sub Division, Dera Bassi (respondent No. 3), Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala (respondent No. 2) and the learned Financial Commissioner Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh (respondent No. 1) respectively.. 2. Respondents Nos. 5 to 7 filed an application seeking partition of joint land measuring 274 bighas 15 biswas situated in the revenue estate of village Sekhpur Kalan, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) as per the Jamabandi for the year 1988-89, The petitioners are cosharers to the extent of 1/2 share in the said land and respondents Nos. 5 to 7 are co-sharers to the extent of 1 /4th share. The other private respondents are co-sharers to the extent of remaining 1 /4th share. In the course of partition proceedings, the mode of partition was prepared vide order dated 17.8.2001. The same is as follows :- "1. The total land for partition is 274 bighas 15 biswas. 2. The land is to be partitioned by disturbing the possession of the parties and on the basis of quality/kind of the land and deficiencies will be made up. 3. A passage of two gatha wide will be provided for access to the partitioned land. 4. The present/latest Jamabandi will be treated as the basis for possession. 5. The trees will be liable to partition. 6. The sources of irrigation will remain as they are among the parties. 7. In case any co-sharer has given any area as a mortgage, sold or mortgaged without possession, or exchanged, then the said area will be included in the share of the said cosharer." 3. The grievances of the petitioners is with regard to item 7 of the mode of partition being not adhered to. 7. In case any co-sharer has given any area as a mortgage, sold or mortgaged without possession, or exchanged, then the said area will be included in the share of the said cosharer." 3. The grievances of the petitioners is with regard to item 7 of the mode of partition being not adhered to. The said item 7 envisages that in case any co-sharer has given any area as mortgage or has sold the same without possession, or exchanged then the said area is to be included in the share of the said co-sharer. According to the petitioners, respondents No. 5 to 7 have sold the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 364, 360. 369. 378, 383 and 381. It is submitted that the said khasra numbers are liable to be included in the share of the co-sharers who have either sold it or purchased it. It is submitted that the petitioners have neither sold the said khasra numbers nor purchased it. Therefore, the inclusion of the said khasra numbers in the land of the petitioners is unwarranted. It is further submitted that the persons who have purchased the land comprised in the said khasra numbers are likely to interfere in the possession of the petitioners and therefore, in any case, the co-sharers who have purchased the said land in the alternative are liable to be restrained from interfering in the said land on the basis of the impugned orders. It is also submitted that the revenue authorities in pursuance of the impugned orders have not considered the objection of the petitioners in this regard even though it was specifically raised. 4. In response, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents have submitted that vendors of the joint khata had sold only their shares in the joint holding and even if specific khasra numbers are sold, the same be treated as sale of the share out of the joint khata numbers. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel forthe parties. It is admitted position between the parties that the land that has been finally partitioned is as per the site plan (Annexure P8). In the said site plan (Annexure P8), the land in green colour has been given to the petitioners. The land in pink colour has been given to respondents Nos. It is admitted position between the parties that the land that has been finally partitioned is as per the site plan (Annexure P8). In the said site plan (Annexure P8), the land in green colour has been given to the petitioners. The land in pink colour has been given to respondents Nos. 5 to 7 and the land in blue colour has been given to respondents Nos. 8 to 12. Out of the Khasra numbers as mentioned and stated to have been sold by the other-co-sharers, only land comprised in Khasra Nos. 360/2 and 364 has fallen to the share of the petitioner. This in fact is quite a small area out of the land stated to be sold and which according to the petitioner is not to be included in his share. Even otherwise a perusal of item 7 of the mode of partition settled on 17.8.2001 shows that in case any co-sharer has given any area by way of mortgage, sale without possession or exchange then the said area will be included in the share of the said co-sharer. The same, therefore. only provides for inclusion of the share of the cosharer who has either sold or mortgage his land. It does not provide for giving in partition proceedings the specific khasra number to the cosharer who has sold the land. A Full Bench ofthis Court in Bhurtu v. Ram Samp, 1981 PLJ 204 has held that wherever a vendor sells specific khasra numbers out of the joint land, the same would be treated as a sale of the share out of the joint holding of the vendor. The same has been reiterated by a Five Judges Bench of this Court in Ram Chander v. Bhim Singh, 2008(3) RCR(Civil) 685 (P&H). As such, the objection of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the mode of partition has been violated is unsustainable. However, the alternative relief claimed by the petitioners that in any case respondents Nos. 5 to 16 who are the co-sharers should not.disturb the possession of the petitioners in respect of the khasra numbers that have been assigned to the petitioners is quite valid. 6. However, the alternative relief claimed by the petitioners that in any case respondents Nos. 5 to 16 who are the co-sharers should not.disturb the possession of the petitioners in respect of the khasra numbers that have been assigned to the petitioners is quite valid. 6. Learned counsel appearing for private respondents have submitted that they would not, in any manner, interfere with the possession of the land of the petitioners that has been given to him in pursuance of the partition proceedings and as detailed in green colour in the site plan Annexure P8. 7. In the light of the above, the writ petition is disposed of by holding that there is no violation of the mode of partition sanctioned on 17.8.2001. However, respondents Nos. 5 to 16 shall not, in any manner, interfere in possession of the land of the petitioners that has been finally assigned to them in the partition proceedings and as detailed in green colour in the site plan Annexure P8. Order accordingly. Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others - Respondents Civil Writ Petition No. 3915 of 2008 Keshav Kumar Bansal - Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others - Respondents For the Petitioner:- Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the State:- Mr. Randhir Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana For the Respondent:- Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Aggarwal, Advocate. For the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4:- Mr. Ajay Kumar Kansal, Advocate. For the Respondent Nos. 15 and 25:- Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate. For the Respondent No. 5 and 31:- Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent Nos. 6 and 34:- Mr. B.R. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent No. 9:- Mr. Raman Chawla, Advocate. For the Respondents Nos. 10 and 18:- Mr. Sudhanshu Makkar, Advocate. For the Respondent Nos. 11 and 23:- Mr. Dilbagh Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent No. 16:- Mr. Arun Sehgal, Advocate. For the Respondent No. 19:- Ms. Sandeepa Mehta, Advocate. For the Respondents Nos. 20 and 33:- Mr. D.S. Malik, Advocate. For the Respondent No. 22:- Mr. Haripal Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent No. 35:- Mr. Jitender Nara, Advocate. For the Respondent Nos. 17 & 40 to 42:- Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate. For the Respondent:- Ms. Nisha Goel, Advocate for Mr. D.S. Bali, Sr. Advocate. For the Respondent No. 8:- Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate. 20 and 33:- Mr. D.S. Malik, Advocate. For the Respondent No. 22:- Mr. Haripal Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent No. 35:- Mr. Jitender Nara, Advocate. For the Respondent Nos. 17 & 40 to 42:- Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate. For the Respondent:- Ms. Nisha Goel, Advocate for Mr. D.S. Bali, Sr. Advocate. For the Respondent No. 8:- Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate. A. Constitution of India, Artkle 14 - Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977, Section 15 - Contract by State -Allotment Industrial plots by HUDA - Allotment set aside - There was no transparency - No comparative merit of successful and unsuccessful applicants was drawn and no exercise to compare the successful allottees and unsuccessful applicants was undertaken - Held :- 1. The project reports submitted by the applicants have not been evaluated - There was no inter se determination of financial capability. 2. The facts showed that plots were allotted