JUDGMENT RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J. The petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.10.2009 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, upholding the order dated 10.4.2006 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Collector Sonepat and the order dated 2.12.2003 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Ganaur, alleging that impugned orders have been passed in glaring violation of the mode of partition dated 7.7.2003 (Annexure P-7). The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners, vide their application dated 7.8.1996, sought partition of land measuring 161 kanals 10 marlas, amongst its co-sharers. After hearing both the parties, mode of partition was proposed vide order dated 8.11.2001 (Annexure P-6), inviting objections from the parties. Objections were heard and finally, the mode of partition was amended vide order dated 7.7.2003 (Annexure P-7). Pursuant to the amended mode of partition dated 7.7.2003, Assistant Collector 1st Grade, sought naksha kha. The petitioners filed their objections dated 19.9.2003 (Annexure P-8) to the naksha kha. However, Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Ganaur, vide his order dated 2.12.2003 (Annexure P-1), accepted the naksha Kha by rejecting the objections raised by the petitioners. Dissatisfied, petitioners filed their appeal vide Annexure P-2, which came to be dismissed by the Collector, Ganaur, vide order dated 10.4.2006 (Annexure P-3). This order was challenged by the petitioners by way of revision petition before the Commissioner-respondent No.1. Revision of the petitioners also met the same fate and it was dismissed, vide impugned order dated 8.10.2009 (Annexure P-5). Feeling aggrieved against the above said impugned orders, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the impugned orders. Notice of motion was issued, vide order dated 10.12.2009, and in the meantime, status quo with regard to the existing position was ordered to be maintained. A joint written statement on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, was filed. However, learned counsel for the private respondents did not choose to file separate written statement and vide his statement made on 25.5.2011, he adopted the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the respondent revenue authorities have failed to apply their mind judiciously, thereby glaringly violating the amended mode of partition dated 7.7.2003 (Annexure P-7). Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the respondent revenue authorities have failed to apply their mind judiciously, thereby glaringly violating the amended mode of partition dated 7.7.2003 (Annexure P-7). He further submits that neither the quality of the land has been kept in mind, nor the co-sharers have been allotted their shares in a consolidated manner, although it was a specific term in the amended mode of partition. The practical difficulty in cultivating the land has also been altogether ignored, again violating the amended mode of partition. He next contended that the shares of 3/4 khewats have been allotted land at as many as seven places, thereby creating a genuine and practical problem for the shareholders to put their respective land to its optimum use. The very object of specific and agreed clause in the mode of partition to the effect that the area of every co-sharers will be allotted in a consolidated manner, has been defeated. He finally prays for setting aside the impugned orders and for acceptance of the writ petition. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the respondent revenue authorities did not commit any error of law, while passing the impugned orders and the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. Supporting the contentions of learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the private respondents submits that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners, while passing the impugned orders. He further submits that the co-sharers have been allotted their due shares, keeping their respective possession intact on their tubewells dug by the parties and possession was also least disturbed. He submits that since the impugned orders were based on factually correct and legally justified approach, the writ petition was without any merit and the same was liable to be dismissed. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned orders are glaringly against the amended mode of partition and the the present writ petition deserves to be allowed. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter. A bare reading of the impugned orders, amended mode of partition dated 7.7.2003 (Annexure P-7) and the site plan (Annexure P-9), would make it clear that the respondent revenue authorities have miserably failed to apply their judicious mind to the fact situation obtaining at the site, while passing their respective impugned orders, which are glaringly against the amended mode of partition, Annexure P-7. It has come on record that the petitioners raised their valid objections against the proposed mode of partition dated 8.11.2001 (Annexure P-6) and the same were found to be full of substance. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade, while finalising the mode of partition, vide order dated 7.7.2003, observed as under:- “As per objections to mode of partition raised by applicant Raghunath and by respondent No. 10 to 13, the partition to be effected by disturbing the possession instead of by upholding the possessions. The land which is uncultivable, being sandy and not plane one, be divided equally among all the co-sharers as per their share. The area of every co-sharers is to be allotted in a consolidated manner. They should not face any difficulty in cultivating the land. The objections are valid one. The objections of applicant Raghunath and of respondent No .10 to 13 are allowed. There should be separate khewat of respondent No. 10 to 13. It is to be amended in mode of partition, which was proposed on 6.11.2001.” The petitioners raised four precise objections viz:-(i) the land which was uncultivable being sandy and not even, be divided equally amongst the co-sharers, as per their shares, (ii) the partition be effected by disturbing possession instead of upholding the possession of the parties (iii), the area of every co-sharers be allotted in a consolidated manner and (iv), the co-sharers should not face any difficulty in cultivating the land. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade, found these objections to be valid and the same were allowed, ordering amendment in the proposed mode of partition dated 6.11.2001. However, a bare glance at the site plan would show that all the above four clauses of amended mode of partition dated 7.7.2003, have been glaringly violated at the site. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade, found these objections to be valid and the same were allowed, ordering amendment in the proposed mode of partition dated 6.11.2001. However, a bare glance at the site plan would show that all the above four clauses of amended mode of partition dated 7.7.2003, have been glaringly violated at the site. Since the respondent revenue authorities have failed to appreciate the true factual aspect of the case in the right perspective, the impugned order dated 2.12.2003 (Annexure P-1), passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade, is clearly in violation of the amended mode of partition dated 7.7.2003. Similarly, the Collector as well as the Commissioner failed to delve deep into the above said factual as well as legal aspect of the matter, while passing their respective impugned orders. It is neither understandable, nor it appeals to reason as to how the object of allotting the land in a consolidated manner has been achieved, by the respondent authorities while allotting small pieces of land at as many as seven places to all the 3/4 khata holders, as per Annexure P-9. During the course of hearing, this material fact has not been denied by the learned counsel for the respondents, that the land has been allotted to the co-sharers of all the 3/4 khewats at seven places, each. This has run counter to the object of allotting the land in a consolidated manner. In this view of the matter, it is unhesitatingly held that the amended mode of partition dated 7.7.2003 (Annexure P-7), has not been kept in view by the respondent revenue authorities, while passing their respective impugned orders. No other argument was raised. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned orders dated 2.12.2003 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Ganaur, order dated 10.4.2006 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Collector, Sonepat and the order dated 8.10.2009 (Annexure P-5), passed by Commissioner, Rohtak Division, suffer from patent illegality and perversity and the same are hereby set aside. The case is remanded back to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Ganaur-respondent No.3 to pass fresh order, keeping in view the amended mode of partition dated 7.7.2003 (Annexure P-7), and the observations made by this Court here-in-above, by passing an appropriate order, at an early date, in accordance with law, after granting due opportunity of being heard to both the parties. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed.