JUDGMENT Mr. Rajive Bhalla, J.:- The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 03.10.2002, 27.03.2003 and 20.09.2005, passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Raikot, the Collector, Sub Division, Raikot and the Financial Commissioner (Appeals- II), Punjab, Chandigarh, respectively. 2. Dial Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the contesting respondents no.5 to 11 filed an application for partition of the land. The Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Raikot, prepared a mode of partition for land measuring 241 kanals 18 marlas but eventually these orders were set aside by the Collector as there was a difference in the area to be partitioned. The contesting respondents filed a fresh petition for partition which was decided on 03.10.2002. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Collector, Raikot which was dismissed. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioners filed a revision before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, who accepted the revision and remitted the matter to the Assistant Collector to decide the application in accordance with the compromise dated 27.07.1991. The contesting respondents filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner, Appeals Punjab. The revision was allowed and the order passed by the Commissioner was set aside. 3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the compromise Annexure P-5 is duly signed by the contesting respondents. The compromise accepts that the petitioners will remain in possession and therefore should form the basis for partition of the land. The order passed by the Financial Commissioner is non-speaking and therefore, should be set aside. It is further submitted that the compromise could not be produced before the Assistant Collector as the petitioners were proceeded against ex-parte. After they were allowed to participate in the proceedings, they were not granted any opportunity to file a copy of the compromise or raise any objection to partition proceedings. 4. Counsel for the contesting respondents, on the other hand, submits that the writ petition is an attempt to delay partition proceedings as both the petitioners are in possession of land far in excess of their share. The total shareholding of Bikkar Singh, petitioner no.1 is 3 kanals whereas he is in possession of more than 12 kanals. The shareholding of Malkiat Singh is 9 kanals whereas he is in possession of a larger parcel of land. The total shareholding of Bikkar Singh, petitioner no.1 is 3 kanals whereas he is in possession of more than 12 kanals. The shareholding of Malkiat Singh is 9 kanals whereas he is in possession of a larger parcel of land. It is further submitted that a perusal of the order dated 03.10.2002, passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Raikot, discloses that on 26.09.2002, the petitioners filed an application for setting aside ex-parte proceedings. After hearing them, the petitioners were allowed to participate in the proceedings but did not raise any objection or file any compromise though the final order of partition was passed on 03.10.2002. It is further submitted that the compromise is not signed by any of the co-sharers other than the petitioners and even if the compromise is accepted, it does not bind the contesting respondents. It is also pointed out that the stay order was obtained on 20.07.2006 by concealing the fact that possession has been delivered, in execution of the final order of partition, on 19.06.2006. It is argued that the writ petition has been filed to delay partition proceedings. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. Counsel for the petitioners does not deny that petitioner no.1 is owner of 3 kanals whereas Malkiat Singh is owner of 1/12th share out of 87 kanals and 11 marlas i.e. 9 kanals. The petitioners are in possession of much larger parcels of land and have, therefore, thwarted every attempt to partition the land. The compromise Annexure P-5 is irrelevant as though it was available with the petitioners, it was not pressed into service, before the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade or before the Collector. The compromise Annexure P-5 is not signed by any co-sharer, except the petitioners and merely refers to the land of Gurdev Kaur and Hardial Singh. In view of these facts, the compromise, cannot form the basis for a partition or be pressed into service against the other co-sharers. Even otherwise partition proceedings have concluded and no prejudice is established or proved. The order passed by the Financial Commissioner though not entirely satisfactory does not call for any interference, in view of the above facts. It would also be necessary to mention that partition proceedings concluded in the year 2002 and possessions have been altered. 6. Even otherwise partition proceedings have concluded and no prejudice is established or proved. The order passed by the Financial Commissioner though not entirely satisfactory does not call for any interference, in view of the above facts. It would also be necessary to mention that partition proceedings concluded in the year 2002 and possessions have been altered. 6. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. ----------------