JUDGMENT Mr. Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral):- Appellants and respondent No.4 are the collaterals and coowners in a joint khewat. The appellants filed an application under Section 111 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 for partition of land in the year 2009. In that application, it was stated that land in dispute measuring 174 kanals 8 marlas is joint between the parties and it be partitioned taking note of quality of that land. It was further stated that the land, which is situated adjoining the metaled road is more valuable as compared to the land situated away from that road. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Gurdaspur afforded an opportunity to the appellants to get their statements recorded in support of the averments made in their application. When the appellants failed to do so, following order was passed on 17.7.2009:- “File presented. Case was called for. Parties are present. Applicant did not got his statement recorded inspite of last opportunity. File was perused. It was ordered that partition be done by keeping the possession intact. However, as per need, possession may be disturbed. Mode of partition be issued. File again be put up for 12.8.2009.” 2. In accordance with the above said order, mode of partition was framed on that very date. Clause No.2 of the mode of partition reads as under:- “2. Partition will be done by keeping the possession intact. However, in order to overcome any shortcomings, possession may be disturbed.” 3. Against the above order, the appellants went in appeal which was dismissed by the Collector, Gurdaspur on 29.3.2010. Relevant portion of that order reads thus: “5. I have gone through the case file, the material placed on the same and have also given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the counsel of the parties in appeal before the court. The counsel of the appellants has not denied or controverted the facts of partition of the land with mutual consent of the shareholders from the Tehsildar, Gurdaspur on 14.9.1996 and also of the shareholders on the said land as per their entitlement. In the order under appeal, it has been clearly mentioned that the appellants though given opportunities and even last opportunity to get their statements recorded, but failed to comply with the orders of the court. In the order under appeal, it has been clearly mentioned that the appellants though given opportunities and even last opportunity to get their statements recorded, but failed to comply with the orders of the court. Also when the fact of possession of the share holders on the land, as per their share entitlement was not denied, then framing of the mode of partition by keeping intact the said possession of the parties cannot be held as illegal. Keeping in view all these facts and also the fact that the appellants failed to get record their statements for the framing of mode of partition, who were well aware of the continuing of the partition proceedings before the court of the AC Ist Grade, the appeal of the appellants fails and is hereby dismissed. The order of the AC I under appeal is upheld. The case file is sent back to the ACI with the directions to continue with the partition proceedings from the stage, the appeal was preferred by the appellants. The parties are directed to appear before the ACI Gurdaspur on 12.4.2010. A copy of this order with the requisitioned file be sent to the court of the AC Ist Grade, Gurdaspur and this court appeal file after its completion be consigned to the record room.” 4. It was noted that on the basis of mutual consent, the parties are in settled separate possession. Revision petition, filed by the appellants, was also dismissed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar on 17.7.2012. Thereafter, they came to this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 22601 of 2012, which was dismissed on 16.11.2012. Hence, this appeal. 5. Before the authorities below and before this Court also, it is vehemently contended that the land be allotted to the appellants adjoining the road. Taking note of the same, following order was passed by this Court on 17.7.2013:- “It is contention of counsel for the appellants that pucca road comes to an end prior to the house of the appellants and it does not go further through the land which is shown in ‘blue’ colour. Averment of counsel for respondent No.4 is to the contrary. Counsel for respondent No.4 is directed to file an affidavit after verifying the above said fact from the Patwari and getting the aks sajra prepared. Adjourned to 20.08.2013.” 6. Averment of counsel for respondent No.4 is to the contrary. Counsel for respondent No.4 is directed to file an affidavit after verifying the above said fact from the Patwari and getting the aks sajra prepared. Adjourned to 20.08.2013.” 6. It was stated that the road comes to an end one acre away from the house of the appellants and the land allotted to them. 7. In response to that order, an affidavit of Joginder Singh has been filed today in the Court, which is taken on record. It is stated therein that houses of both the parties are situated in khasra Nos. 31//3/1 & 31//3/2. The metaled road comes to an end about one acre before the houses of both the parties and thereafter three karams passage has been left as an access to those houses. Site plan has also been placed on record depicting the above said fact. 8. To strengthen an argument that the land was partitioned way back in the year 1996, reliance has been placed upon a document (Annexure R4/2/T) dated 14.6.1996 vide which land falling in two khasra numbers was exchanged amongst the parties. Those khasra numbers are situated in the taks now going to be allotted to the appellants and respondent No.4. Reading of that exchange deed indicates that allotment of land is going to be made to the appellants and the respondent No.4 as per their possession, which is shown in the Aks Shajra. It appears that the parties are in settled possession of their respective blocks of land that is why only possession of some land was exchanged to make the land, in their possession, in compact blocks. The learned Single Judge has looked into this aspect when dismissing writ petition of the appellants, referred to above, on 16.11.2012. Relevant portion of that order reads thus:- “With the help of the counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the possession at site of the respective parties. No doubt, some portion of the land in possession of the respondents is falling on the pucca road, but it may not be practical to adjust the petitioners along the pucca road, which may lead to some bifurcation of the land, if the partition is allowed on that count. No doubt, some portion of the land in possession of the respondents is falling on the pucca road, but it may not be practical to adjust the petitioners along the pucca road, which may lead to some bifurcation of the land, if the partition is allowed on that count. Otherwise also, except for bald assertion that land is of different value, no material has been placed on record to show that the land along the road would be of a different value than which is away from the road. Otherwise also, the road does not end with the land of the respondents and proceed further and it is an internal link road of a village. There may be some difference between the value of the land, but in any case, it is not established on record. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction.” 9. We are in agreement with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is proved that the parties are in settled possession of the land and mode of partition has been effected fairly. Furthermore, once the appellants failed to make a statement before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Gurdaspur, there was no option left for the said officer except to partition the land in dispute as per settled possession. 10. Dismissed. --------0.B.S.0------------