JUDGMENT Paramjeet Singh, J. Affidavit of Buta Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh filed in Court today, is taken on record. Instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders dated 10.08.2010 (Annexure P7) passed by respondent no.1Financial Commissioner, Revenue Punjab, dated 19.02.2008 (Annexure P6) passed by respondent no.2 Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, dated 30.12.2005 (Annexure P5) passed by respondent no.3Collector, Gidderbaha and dated 18.07.2005 (Annexure P4) passed by respondent no.4Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Gidderbaha, in partition proceeding. In brief, facts relevant for disposal of the present writ petition are to the effect that respondent no.5 Karam Singh filed application for partition of land measuring 360 kanals 17 marlas, situated within revenue limits of village Surewala, Tehsil Gidderbaha, District Muktsar. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Gidderbaha gave notice to the parties and afforded opportunity to file reply. Thereafter, respondent no.4 allowed the continuation of partition proceedings. Naksha 'Ura' was called and objections thereon were also heard. Statements of parties were recorded before framing mode of partition. After considering the statements, mode of partition was approved whereby it was mentioned that entire agricultural land will be partitioned excluding the gairmumk inland. One 'tak' of the applicant, second 'tak' of respondents no.11 to 13, third 'tak' of respondent no.15 and 4th 'tak' of remaining respondents before A.C Ist Grade were ordered to be carved out. Mode of partition was also approved. Thereafter, Naksha 'Bey' was called. Parties were afforded opportunity to file objections to Naksha 'Bey'. The petitioners filed objections to Naksha 'Bey' on 04.07.2005 which were dismissed by A.C Ist Grade holding that they had failed to show as to out of which khasra number, they had been given less land. It was also held that Naksha 'Bey'is in accordance with the mode of partition. Thereafter, Naksha 'Jeem' was also passed and direction was also issued to prepare 'Sanand Takseem' (instrument of partition). Against the impugned order (Annexure P4) passed by A.C Ist Grade, appeal was preferred by the petitioners which has been dismissed by the Collector, vide impugned order dated 30.12.2005 (Annexure P5). The revision petition filed by the petitioners has also been dismissed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur vide impugned order dated 19.02.2008 (Annexure P6). Against the impugned order (Annexure P4) passed by A.C Ist Grade, appeal was preferred by the petitioners which has been dismissed by the Collector, vide impugned order dated 30.12.2005 (Annexure P5). The revision petition filed by the petitioners has also been dismissed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur vide impugned order dated 19.02.2008 (Annexure P6). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed revision before the Financial Commissioner, Revenue Punjab after delay of 637 days which has also been dismissed vide order dated 10.08.2010 (Annexure P7). Hence, this writ petition. Upon notice, respondents no.1 to 4 filed their written statement with the averments that all the proceedings have been done in accordance with law. Respondent no.5 and respondents no.18(i) to 18 (iii) filed their separate written statements with the averments that partition has been carried out by the authorities in accordance with law. Everyone has been heard and opportunity to file objections to Naksha 'Bey' has been afforded. It is one of the objections taken by respondent no.5 that the petitioners have concealed the fact of filing of civil suit challenging the order passed by the revenue authorities in partition proceedings and stay was sought with regard to implementation of impugned order dated 18.07.2005 (Annexure P4). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Naksha 'Bey'has not been prepared as per mode of partition and in accordance with law. Objections have been wrongly dismissed by the revenue authorities. Learned counsel further contended that revision filed by the petitioners before the Financial Commissioner, Revenue Punjab has been dismissed on ground of limitation. Per contra, learned State counsel, learned counsel for respondent no.5 and learned counsel for respondent no.18 jointly contended that the petitioners have not come to this Court with clean hands and concealed the fact that they have already filed a civil suit challenging the partition order passed by the revenue authorities. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioners have not intentionally annexed Naksha 'Bey'from which exact position may become clear. There is an equitable partition and everyone has been given land according to the sanctioned mode of partition. The petition deserves to be dismissed on account of concealment of material fact. I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties. There is an equitable partition and everyone has been given land according to the sanctioned mode of partition. The petition deserves to be dismissed on account of concealment of material fact. I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out how objections have been incorrectly rejected by the revenue authorities. The petitioners have also not placed on record Naksha 'Bey' from which it could be determined whether partition has been effected in accordance with mode of partition or not. The material document has been withheld by the petitioners for the reasons best known to them. It is a categoric finding of A.C Ist Grade that present petitioners failed to show as to from which khasra number, they have been given less land. Otherwise also, second revision before the Financial Commissioner, Revenue Punjab was filed after delay of 637 days i.e. almost two years and the petitioners have also filed a civil suit. This fact has not been mentioned in the writ petition. The petitioners have concealed the material fact from the court. Otherwise also, partition has become final. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. For the reasons recorded above, instant writ petition is dismissed for concealment of material facts and on merit also.