01.05.2025 VIKAS BHARDWAJ AND OTHERS VIKAS BHARDWAJ AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH CWP-12093-2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) Date of decision :01.05.2025 Date of decision :01.05.2025 VIKAS BHARDWAJ AND OTHERS VIKAS BHARDWAJ AND OTHERS …Petitioners Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA …Respondents CORAM: HARSH BUNGER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present : , Advocate Mr. Kartar Singh Malik, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Upasana Dhawan, A.A.G., Haryana. Ms. Upasana Dhawan, A.A.G., Haryana. HARSH BUNGER, J. [ORAL] HARSH BUNGER, J. [ORAL] Prayer in the present writ petition, filed under Articles Prayer in the present writ petition, filed under Articles Prayer in the present writ petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari certiorari, for setting aside the order dated 20.08.2024 (Annexure P 10) , for setting aside the order dated 20.08.2024 (Annexure P-10) also the order dated passed by the learned Collector, Rohtak and also the order dated passed by the learned Collector, Rohtak and passed by the learned Collector, Rohtak and 12) passed by the learned Commissioner, Rohtak 12.03.2025 (Annexure P-12) passed by the learned Commissioner, Rohtak 12) passed by the learned Commissioner, Rohtak 12.03.2025 (Annexure P Division, Rohtak. Division, Rohtak. 2. Pawan filed an application for Briefly, respondent No.3-Pawan filed an application for Pawan filed an application for partition of joint land comprised in khewat No.96/74 partition of joint land comprised in (as per Jamabandi for khewat No.96/74 (as per Jamabandi for the year 2020-21) measuring 49 kanals– the year 20 , situated at village –9 marlas, situated at village Brahmanwas, Tehsil and District Rohtak. Brahmanwas, Tehsil and District Rohtak.
Legal Reasoning
GURPREET KAUR 2025.09.18 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh 6 Page 1 of 6 2.1 The present petitioners (who were impleaded as respondents No.1 to 3 in the partition application) appeared in the partition proceedings and submitted their reply, thereby controverting the stand taken by respondent No.3-Pawan in his partition application, especially the claim made by respondent No.3 as regards killa No.52//3/1 and 52//7 and asserting their possession on the said Killa No. 2.2 In the afore-said partition proceedings, mode of partition came to be approved on 20.06.2023 (Annexure P-5) and thereafter, naksha kha was called from the field staff. 2.3 Upon receipt of the naksha kha on the file, objections thereto were called from the parties whereupon, the petitioners submitted their objections (Annexure P-7) to the effect that the land comprised in killa Nos.52//2/1, 2/2, 3/1/1 and 3/1/2 are adjacent to the road and therefore, more valuable than the other land, however, killa Nos.52//2/2 and 3/1 has been wrongly given to the respondents. Another objection was raised regarding killa No.52//7, 14 by stating that the said area does not have any passage. 2.4 It appears that even respondent No.3-Pawan also submitted his objections to naksha kha by stating that in killa No.52//2 and 3/1, his share comes to 03 kanal-10 marlas whereas, he has been provided only 01 kanal – 13 marlas, which was wrong and also that the area adjoining to the road was more valuable, therefore, the same be allotted to all the co-sharers as per their share. 2.5 The afore-said objections were considered by the learned Assistant Collector, however, finding no merit therein, the same were rejected vide order dated 28.02.2024 (Annexure P-8). GURPREET KAUR 2025.09.18 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Page 2 of 6 2.6 Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated 28.02.2024 (Annexure P-8), respondent No.3-Pawan filed an appeal before the learned Collector, Rohtak, which came to be allowed vide order dated 20.08.2024 (Annexure P-10) by observing as under :- “After examining the documents available on the file, perusing the orders of the lower court and the approved Naksha Khe, analyzing the spot report of the Tehsildar Rohtak and comparatively considering the arguments of the learned advocates, I Kanab Lakra, District Revenue Officer, Authorized Collector, Rohtak, have come to the conclusion that the appeal 104/Appeal dated 23.04.2024 filed by the appellant is accepted as a result of being found logical, legal and strong. The lower court is directed that in compliance with the letter number 2872 dated 24.03.2022 of the Hon’ble Finance Commissioner Haryana Government, Chandigarh, that the suit land bearing Mustkil No.52//2, 3/1 which is more valuable than other land, Killa No.52//3/1 (Min East) be allotted to the appellant as per his possession, cultivation and irrigation resources. The land of defendant Vikas etc. be completed from Mustkil No.52//2/2 and 8/2 and as per rules, way should be given to 8/2 from Killa No.2/2. The excess portion of defendant Aadesh etc. be cut from 52//2/1 and as per rules, the deficiency should be completed from the adjoining land in Mustkil No.77, less kurras of the land be made. Besides, the lower court should ensure that whatever separate Khewat is made in the suit land, all Khewats/Kurras be provided Khaal and passage as per rules. The order was pronounced in open court. The parties were instructed to appear in the court on 13.09.2024 and prosecute the case. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.” 2.7 Being aggrieved, the present petitioners challenged the order dated 20.08.2024 (Annexure P-10) by filing a revision petition before the learned Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak. Similarly, other GURPREET KAUR 2025.09.18 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Page 3 of 6 co-sharers namely, Aadesh and Yogesh also filed their separate petitions against the order dated 20.08.2024 (Annexure P-10). Both the afore-said petitions came to be rejected by the learned Commissioner, vide common order dated 12.03.2025 (Annexure P-12), the relevant extract of which reads as under :- “After comparative analysis of the arguments/references, I have reached the conclusion that since Mustkil/Killa No.52//2 and 3/1 are on the road, the Collector’s Court has passed orders to allot land to respondent No.1 as per his share, which is justified. Along with this, petitioner Vikas etc. have also been given land as per their share in Mustkil No.52 because he has been allotted land of Killa No.52//8/2 near the road. Accordingly, both the present appeals/revision are rejected…” 2.8 In the afore-mentioned circumstances, the present petition has been filed by the petitioners before this Court, for the relief/s, as noticed here-in-above. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have more than 1/3rd share in the land comprised in killa Nos.52//2, 3/1/1 and 3/1/2, whereas, they have been allocated only 02 kanal-14 marla in killa Nos.52//2/2 and 3/1/1. It is further submitted that killa No.15/1/1 is banjar land and the petitioners have been given 02 kanal-02 marla area therein. It is next submitted that no watercourse (khal) has been provided to killa Nos.3, 8/3/1, which is against mode of partition. The other submission is also based upon the claim of the petitioners regarding other specific khasra numbers. Accordingly, the prayer has been made for setting aside the partition proceedings. 4. Heard. GURPREET KAUR 2025.09.18 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Page 4 of 6 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the paper book. The grievance of the petitioners is primarily regarding allocation of more or less land in particular khasra nos. and also the manner in which the land has been partitioned amongst the various co-sharers. 5.1 In my considered view, the partition of land amongst the co-sharers is carried out as per the share holding of the respective co-sharers in the joint khewat and not as per their share in each separate khasra number. The primary object of partition is to carve out separate land holdings for the co-sharers, who do not want to have their holdings joint with other persons and also to consolidate the land holdings in minimum possible blocks, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. It is well established that partition can never be carried out with mathematical precision and some adjustments are always required to be made considering various factors like number of co-sharers in the joint land, shape of the land parcels/pockets under partition, location of land (whether abutting the road/passage or near to village abadi or town etc.), nature/value of land, source of irrigation, existing possession of the parties, provisioning of passage(s)/water-course(s), construction of hutments/houses etc. There may be other factors as well which may call for carving out of blocks of respective co-sharers, in a particular manner. 5.2 A perusal of the aks-shajra (Annexure P-6) attached with naksha kha would show that the land under partition is comprised in five separate land pockets and all the co-sharers have been allocated land in each of the land pockets (except killa No.70//22/1, which appears to have been allocated to respondent No.3-Pawan). The petitioners have not raised any claim as regards afore-said killa No.70//22/1. Apparently, the partition GURPREET KAUR 2025.09.18 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Page 5 of 6 appears to have been carried out in a fair manner. It is not the case of the petitioners that they have been allotted land less than their entitlement. 6. 7. No other point has been urged. Considering the totality of circumstances, I find no merit in the instant writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 8. All pending application/s, if any, shall also stand closed. May 01, 2025 gurpreet (HARSH BUNGER) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No GURPREET KAUR 2025.09.18 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Page 6 of 6