JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.: - Respondents No. 5 to 9 filed a partition application before respondent No. 4 for partition of joint khewat measuring 2613 kanals 4 marlas of land situated at village Ghata Tehsil Sohana, District Gurgaon. The petitioner alongwith others raised objections and disputed rights of respondents No. 5 to 9 to get this land partitioned as some question of title was raised which was pending. It is stated that land in dispute is recorded as Gair Mumkin Pahar and Nala and as per Sharat Wazib-Ul-Arz, Gair Mumkin Pahar and Nala can not be partitioned. 2. Respondent No. 4 dismissed the objections with regard to the question of title raised by the petitioner. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No. 3. The appeal was dismissed on 18.12.2006 on the ground that question of title already stood decided in Civil Revision No. 3375 of 2005 decided on 18.01.2006. It is even noticed that during the partition proceedings the petitioner had sold away his entire portion of land and now no land is left qua his share in the partition application. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed a revision which was dismissed on 09.04.2007. Thereafter, he filed a revision before respondent No. 1 which is also dismissed. Accordingly, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. Initially objection raised by the petitioner was only that partition of the land can not be ordered on the ground that question of title is involved. The pleadings here indicate that the title of land was decided though counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments states that some civil suit is pending. 4. Counsel for the respondents further states that dispute in civil suit is pending with the other respondents where the respondents herein have no interest. 5. The petitioner here is Lunar Finance Limited. Petitioner is not a farmer seeking partition or who is opposing such prayer by some farmers. Respondents No. 5 to 9 are developer. Land in question is in District Gurgaon an extended National Capital region. This is not a routine type of contests between co-sharers. It is a contest between two exploiters who have been able to enrich themselves at the cost of poor farmers. Respondents No. 5 to 9 have come all the way from Hyderabad to do what in Gurgaon? Land in question is in District Gurgaon an extended National Capital region. This is not a routine type of contests between co-sharers. It is a contest between two exploiters who have been able to enrich themselves at the cost of poor farmers. Respondents No. 5 to 9 have come all the way from Hyderabad to do what in Gurgaon? of course not to do agriculture but to enrich at whose cost agriculturist. Just to notice the extent of benefit, the area sold by the petitioner to builders may need a mention. This fact surfaced when the respondents have pointed out that the petitioner is left with no interest in the land. Petitioner is alleged to have purchased 922 kanals 3 marlas land between the year 1996 to 2000. The petitioner has sold 85 kanals 15 ½ marlas to Emerlad Constructions, 420 kanals 2 marlas to respondent No. 15, 414 kanals 8 ½ marlas to M/s Believe Builders Pvt. Ltd. and another 1 Kanal 17 marlas to respondent No. 17. Share of answering respondents is also not less. They own 1066 kanals 19 marlas. What is happening? What are the revenue authorities doing? Where is ceiling laws? Are they only meant to take land from farmers by getting it declared surplus. Is there no law for these modern days exploiters of farmer. They are so influential that even the law could be changed or ignored for them. They have given out in some unguided moments that ‘Pahar’ can not be partitioned. Obviously, they have been able to buy this ‘Pahar’. Some one has to look into this. 6. Be that as it may, counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to a part of pleading where he has referred to certain sale deeds showing sale of land in his favour in the year 2000 to indicate that he still has interest in the land about which application of partition is filed. The objection raised in the petition though not pressed before me on the ground that land shown as Gair Mumkin Pahar and Nala can not be partitioned would appear to be a contradiction of a sort. They have already sold away portion of land to different builders. If the land is jointly held then no one can sell particular khasara. The objection raised in the petition though not pressed before me on the ground that land shown as Gair Mumkin Pahar and Nala can not be partitioned would appear to be a contradiction of a sort. They have already sold away portion of land to different builders. If the land is jointly held then no one can sell particular khasara. Obviously, the plea that the land can not be partitioned on this ground has been raised only for the sake of argument so if the land is joint be it a Pahar, it could either have not been sold, if sold it could have only been the share and without partition no particular khasras could have been sold. I say nothing more than this. Since there is a dispute in facts whether the petitioner is left with an interest in the land of which the respondents have sought partition it would be appropriate to remand the case back to the Collector who shall consider if the petitioner still has any interest in the land sought to be partitioned by the respondents. The Collector may also apply himself on the happenings under his nose as to how all this is going on. If the authorities can have any check on this exploitation it may still do some good for the Government. Some one has to get up and protect the public interest. Law should prevail. Nothing drastic is being advanced. Let not only the issue of partition be seen in this case but any other incidental issues may also be gone into to see the legality and validity of all these transactions on the part of petitioner as well as respondents No. 5 to 9 and other such builders having any other interest than farming. 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.