The High Court
Case Details
NJAB AND HARYANA AT N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB IN THE GARH CHANDIGARH M) CWP-13313-2025 (O&M) 25 Date of decision :27.05.2025 KRISHAN A AN AND OTHERS STATE OF H OF HARYANA AND OTHERS Versus …Petitioners …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HA E HARSH BUNGER Present : Mr. Amandeep Vashisth, Advoca dvocate for the petitioners. Mr. Nirmaljit Singh Diwana, Sr. na, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab. HARSH BUN H BUNGER, J. [ORAL] CM-8192-CW CWP-2025 This is an application for pla sra for placing on record the Khasra Girdawari as as Annexure P-30. For the reasons recorded in e is d in the application, the same is allowed and and Annexure P-30 is taken on just en on record, subject to all just exceptions. CWP-13313 313-2025 (O&M) 1. Prayer in the present writ petiti 6 of petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitut nstitution of India, is for setting asid 2025 g aside the order dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure P ure P-21) passed by the learned Fina yana d Financial Commissioner, Haryana in revision p sion petition (ROR No.288 of 201 ision 2016-17) whereby, the revision petition was p was partly allowed.
Legal Reasoning
GURPREET KAUR 2025.09.17 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh 10 Page 1 of 10 1.1 A further prayer has been made for setting aside the orders dated 09.09.1999 (Annexure P-5), 26.09.2002 (Annexure P-10) passed by the learned Collector, Charkhi Dadri; orders dated 11.01.2012 (Annexure P-13), Sanad Takseem dated 15.02.2012 (Annexure P-16) and 15.02.2012 (Annexure P-17), all passed by the learned Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Charkhi Dadri. 1.2 Another prayer has been made for setting aside the order dated 14.09.2012 (Annexure P-18) passed by the learned Collector, Charkhi Dadri and order dated 16.12.2016 (Annexure P-20) passed by the learned Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar. 2. Briefly, one Sh. Bhoop Singh son of Sh. Digha Ram filed an application, seeking partition of the joint land measuring 440 kanals-10 marlas, comprised in khewat No.122/104 (as per Jamabandi for the year
Legal Reasoning
1989-90), situated at village Misri, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani (presently District Charkhi Dadri). 2.1 In the afore-said partition proceedings, initially the mode of partition dated 06.06.1996 (Annexure P-3) was approved whereupon, naksha kha was also received on the file and ultimately, sanad takseem dated 08.07.1997 (Annexure P-4) was issued. 2.2 It is stated that present petitioner No.7 (Ishwar son of Bhagwana) along with other co-sharers preferred an appeal against the afore-said partition proceedings/sanad takseem before the learned Collector, Charkhi Dadri, which was allowed vide order dated 09.09.1999 (Annexure P-5) whereby, the matter was remanded to the learned Assistant Collector to decide the partition proceedings after hearing the concerned parties and also keeping in view the Civil Court order dated 07.12.1962. GURPREET KAUR 2025.09.17 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Page 2 of 10 2.3 On remand, it appears that a fresh mode of partition dated 14.08.2000 (Annexure P-6) was prepared, which was subsequently approved vide order dated 29.08.2000 (Annexure P-6A). Thereafter, naksha `kha’ was called for from the field staff and upon receipt of naksha `kha’ on the file, objections thereto were called. It transpires that to the above-referred naksha `kha’, objections were filed by the respective parties; however, vide order dated 29.11.2001 (Annexure P-9), the objections were dismissed and the Naksha `kha’ was approved. 2.4 Being dissatisfied, respondents No.5 and 6 (Ram Narain and Suraj Bhan sons of Kanhiya) preferred an appeal against the order dated 29.11.2001 (Annexure P-9), which came to be allowed by the learned Collector, vide order dated 26.09.2002 (Annexure P-10) and the matter was again remanded with the direction to give the appellants i.e. Ram Narain and Suraj Bhan, their share in Rectangle Nos.43 and 44, which was stated to be located on the Rohtak-Dadri Road. 2.5 Upon remand, it appears that a fresh Naksha `kha’ (Annexure P-11) was prepared, to which, petitioners herein filed objections; however, the objections filed by the petitioners were dismissed by the learned Assistant Collector, vide order dated 11.01.2012 (Annexure P-13) and Naksha `kha’ was approved, which was followed by Naksha `ga’. 2.6 Apparently, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 11.01.2012 (Annexure P-13) by filing an appeal before the learned Collector; however, during the pendency of the said appeals, sanad takseem dated 15.02.2012 (Annexure P-16) was issued. 2.7 In the face of a fact that the sanad takseem was already issued, the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 11.01.2012 GURPREET KAUR 2025.09.17 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Page 3 of 10 (Annexure P-13) was dismissed by the learned Collector vide order dated 14.09.2012 (Annexure P-18). 2.8 Still aggrieved, petitioners No.1 to 3 preferred a revision petition before the learned Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar; however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 16.12.2016 (Annexure P-20). 2.9 Thereafter, all the petitioners herein preferred a revision petition (ROR No.288 of 2016-17) before the learned Financial
Decision
Commissioner, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure P-21). 2.10 In the afore-mentioned circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners before this Court, seeking relief as noticed here-in-above. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order dated 09.09.1999 (Annexure P-5) and all subsequent proceedings are illegal, therefore, the partition has to be done de novo. It is further submitted that the petitioners have not been allotted land adjacent to the road nor frontage on the road has been given to them as per their entitlement. It is next submitted that one `johri’ has been wrongly left as joint between the parties and unnecessary passages have been provided in the land under partition. Another argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were in possession of land comprised in Rectangle Nos.43 and 44; however, in the partition, their possession has been disturbed and they have been allocated land in fragments. 3.1 With the afore-said submissions, it is prayed that the impugned partition proceedings/orders may be quashed. 4. Heard. GURPREET KAUR 2025.09.17 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Page 4 of 10 5. In the present case, one Sh. Bhoop Singh (predecessor-in- interest of present respondents No.15 to 22) had sought partition of the joint land and the partition proceedings culminated with the drawing of sanad takseem dated 08.07.1997 (Annexure P-4). However, on an appeal being filed by petitioner No.7 herein along with other co-sharers, the matter was remanded to the learned Assistant Collector, for deciding the matter afresh vide order dated 09.09.1999 (Annexure P-5). Apparently, the said order dated 09.09.1999 (Annexure P-5) is not shown to have been challenged before any higher authority, accordingly, it has to be taken that all the parties acquiesced in the said order and chose to appear in the partition proceedings before the learned Assistant Collector. Thereafter, on remand, a fresh mode of partition was approved vide order dated 29.08.2000 (Annexure P-6A) and a fresh Naksha `kha’ was received on the partition file, to which, the objections were submitted by the co-sharers; however, all the objections were dismissed on 29.11.2001 (Annexure P-9) by the learned Assistant Collector and Naksha `kha’ was approved. However, on an appeal being filed by respondent Nos.5 and 6 (Ram Narain and Suraj Bhan), the learned Collector, Hisar again remanded the matter to the learned Assistant Collector. This order also appears to have not been challenged before any higher Forum and the parties again chose to be satisfied with the remand order. 5.1 On remand, a fresh Naksha `kha’ (Annexure P-11) was prepared whereupon, the petitioners submitted their objections which were dismissed vide order dated 11.01.2012 (Annexure P-13) and Naksha `kha’ was approved. Although, the petitioners challenged the order dated 11.01.2012 (Annexure P-13) passed by the learned Assistant Collector, approving Naksha `kha’ by filing an appeal before the learned Collector; GURPREET KAUR 2025.09.17 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Page 5 of 10 however, during the pendency of the appeal, the partition proceedings were concluded with the drawing of Sanad Takseem dated 15.02.2012 (Annexure P-16). Consequently, the appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed vide order dated 14.09.2012 (Annexure P-18). Even a revision petition filed by petitioners No.1 to 3 before the learned Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar was dismissed vide order dated 16.12.2016 (Annexure P-20). Thereafter, the revision petition (ROR No.288 of 2016-17) filed by the petitioners has been disposed of by the learned Financial Commissioner, vide his impugned order dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure P-21). 5.2 Now, as far as the first submission of the petitioners that order dated 09.09.1999 (Annexure P-5) and all subsequent proceedings are illegal; suffice it to say that when the order dated 09.09.1999 (Annexure P-5) was passed, the same was not challenged by any of the parties and all the co-sharers acquiesced to the said order; whereby, the matter had been remanded to the learned Assistant Collector, for deciding the matter afresh. Thereafter, all the co-sharers had participated in the partition proceedings before the learned Assistant Collector, therefore, at this stage and at this length of time, the petitioners cannot be permitted to say that the order dated 09.09.1999 (Annexure P-5) and all subsequent proceedings are illegal. Accordingly, the afore-said contention of the petitioners is rejected. 5.3 As regards the other contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that they are not being allocated land adjacent to the road or that they have been allocated less area in a particular rectangle and also that the possession of the petitioners over land comprised in Rectangle No.43 and 44 has been disturbed by allocating land to them in fragments; it is observed that the afore-said submissions were duly considered by the GURPREET KAUR 2025.09.17 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Page 6 of 10 learned Financial Commissioner, who vide impugned order dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure P-21) has disposed of the matter, by observing as under :- “The case was received by transfer and listed for the first time before this Court on 23.06.2024. This is an old partition matter instituted on 10.03.1995 by Bhup Singh son of Digh Ram. The joint land partitioned is comprised of four different land parcels. The objections of the Ld. Counsel for petitioners are discussed for each of the four land parcels and disposed of as below :- (i) Rectangle nos.43 & 44 It is pleaded by the Ld. Counsel for Petitioners that there is no access to killa no.44//25/2 (3-15) allotted to them in kurra no.4 of the impugned sanad takseem and that they may be allotted killa nos.44/16/2(1-2), 25/1 (2- 13) instead. Adv. Anil Saini controverts the contention saying that the Petitioners’ counsel is not acting in good faith. It is submitted that it was on the Petitioners’ objection, that the Commissioner vide Order dated 16.12.2016 had allotted killa no.44//25/2 to the Petitioners because of the presence of a samadh of the ancestors of the Petitioners. The Petitioners’ counsel gives up his objections regarding the samadh and pleads that they have no objection if the samadh structure is dismantled by the respondents. The contention of the Petitioners’ counsel is accepted, subject to an undertaking to be given to the Assistant Collector that the Petitioners will not claim access to the samadh located in killa no.44//25/2 and that the respondents will have the right to dismantle the samadh structure. (ii) Rectangle nos.87, 88 GURPREET KAUR 2025.09.17 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh It is submitted by the Petitioners' counsel that the common area in killa nos. 87//6/2/1, 7/2/1, 88//9/2/1, Page 7 of 10 10/2/1 be partitioned. Also, the johri in killa nos. 88//11/2, 12/2 be partitioned. Rebutting the same, the Ld. Counsels for Respondents submit that a water pipeline is laid underneath killa nos. 87//6/2/1, 7/2/1, 88//9/2/1, 10/2/1 and hence the area cannot be partitioned. It is further submitted that there, are cemented outlets, which make the area unfit for cultivation. The johris are meant for collection of water to recharge groundwater. At this belated stage, when the sanad takseem was issued 13 years ago on 15.02.2012 and there is a valid common use of the area, the area cannot be partitioned on the asking of the petitioners. As regards other changes suggested by the petitioners, the same is without merits and is dismissed. The Petitioners are most advantaged by the precious allotments of 2/3rd area in the land parcel comprising rectangle nos. 43 & 44 located on the Dadri-Rohtak State Highway. (iii) Rectangle nos.41, 64, 65 The Ld. Counsel for Petitioners wants allotment of killa nos. 68//2, 65//12, 19, 22 in lieu of existing allotments in killa nos. 41//20,21, 22, 65//1 and 2 on the ground that the Petitioners own land in another khewat located to the south of this land parcel. This is opposed by the respondents' counsels on the ground that they too have land located to the south of this land parcel and that the petitioners cannot enjoy the best in all land parcels, since they have been allotted 2/3rdshare in the first land parcel at (i), which is the most valuable. The request of the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners is rejected. (i) Rectangle nos.83, 84 GURPREET KAUR 2025.09.17 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners suggests exchange of killa no. 84//18 with killa no. 84//10, allotted to-the respondents in kurra no. 5 of the sanad takseem. This Page 8 of 10 suggestion is vociferously opposed by the respondents’ counsels and cannot be accepted at the revisional stage. ROR disposed of as above.” 5.4 A perusal of the above extracted order passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, would suggest that all the contentions raised before this Court, have been duly considered/dealt with by the learned Financial Commissioner vide its order dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure P-21). Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any illegality or perversity in the same. 5.5 The main thrust of the learned counsel for the petitioners was on the submission that the possession of the petitioners in respect of land comprised in Rectangle nos.43 and 44 has been disturbed and in order to see the same, the petitioners were directed to place on record the khasra girdawri for the previous years; however, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed on record khasra girdawari for the year 2015-16 onwards as Annexure P-30; wherein also, the exclusive possession of the petitioners on any area forming part of Rectangle Nos.43 and 44 is not forthcoming. Rather, in the cultivation column, the entry says “Mahender Singh etc. as per Khata No.345.” The said entry can, by no stretch of imagination, be interpreted to mean that the petitioners were in exclusive possession of area comprised in Rectangle Nos.43 and 44. 5.6 That apart, I have also considered Aks-shajra depicting the allocation of shares to the respective co-sharers as per Naksha `kha’, which has been placed on record by the petitioners as Annexure P-28. A perusal of the same would show that the land under partition is comprised in four separate pockets and all the co-sharers appear to have been allocated land in all the land pockets. It is well established that partition can never be carried out with mathematical precision and some adjustments are always required Page 9 of 10 GURPREET KAUR 2025.09.17 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh to be made considering various factors like number of co-sharers in the joint land, 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. 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 compelling reason to interfere in the impugned partition proceedings/orders. Accordingly, the instant writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. 8. All pending application/s, if any, shall also stand closed. May 27, 2025 gurpreet (HARSH BUNGER) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No GURPREET KAUR 2025.09.17 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Page 10 of 10