Jai Pal alias Jai Pal Sharma v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Judgment

1. Prayer in the instant civil writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India, inter alia, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order

19.02.2024 (Annexure P-5);

06.05.2024 (Annexure P-6); order dated 30.10.2024 (Annexure P-7); orders dated 27.03.2025 (Annexure P-9 and Annexure P-10, respectively), passed by learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Kharkhoda (in short 'Assistant Collector'), District Sonepat.

1.1 A further prayer has been made for setting aside the order dated 17.02.2026 (Annexure P-15), passed by learned Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak (in short 'Divisional Commissioner').

2. Briefly, respondent No. 4 (Ajay Pal) sought partition of joint land, comprised in Khewat No. 532/501, measuring 28 Kanal – 6 Marla (as per jamabandi for the year 2020-21), situated at village Rohana, Tehsil Kharkhoda District Sonepat. In the said partition application, CWP-15221-2026 (O/M) -2- petitioner (Jai Pal alias Jai Pal Sharma) was impleaded as respondent No. 6.

2.1 It appears that in the aforesaid partition proceedings, notices were issued to respective parties; however, since respondents in the partition application did not appear, accordingly, learned Assistant Collector directed that the service upon the parties be effected through proclamation (mustri munadi).

2.2 Since petitioner and also other co-sharers (respondents in the partition application) did not appear despite mustri munadi, they were proceeded against ex-parte, vide order dated 19.02.2024 (Annexure P-5). It appears that some other respondents in the partition application were proceeded against ex-parte, vide order dated 06.05.2024 (Annexure P-6).

2.3 Thereafter, learned Assistant Collector proceeded with the partition proceedings and mode of partition came to be approved, vide order dated 30.10.2024 (Annexure P-7). On the basis of approved mode of partition, Naksha 'Kha' was called from the field staff.

2.4 Upon receipt of Naksha 'Kha', the same was approved, vide order dated 24.02.2025 (Annexure P-8), followed by Naksha 'Ga', which was approved, vide order dated 27.03.2025 (Annexure P-9) and partition proceedings were concluded with the drawing of sanad takseem, vide order dated 27.03.2025 (Annexure P-10).

2.5 Apparently, petitioner challenged partition proceedings/ sanad takseem by filing a revision petition before learned Divisional Commissioner; however, same was dismissed, vide order dated 17.02.2026 (Annexure P-15). CWP-15221-2026 (O/M) -3-

3. In the aforementioned circumstances, the petitioner has filed the instant civil writ petition for the relief(s), as noticed hereinabove.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that learned Assistant Collector has erred in law and facts in conducting partition proceedings inasmuch as that petitioner has been wrongly proceeded against ex-parte without following due process under Section 20 of Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (in short '1887 Act'). It is further submitted that in the mode of partition, a separate khewat for the petitioner has not been carved out and even while carrying out the partition proceedings, the possession of petitioner has been disturbed, which is contrary to mode of partition, which provided that the partition will be carried out by keeping the possession intact. It is also submitted that one of respondents in the partition application, namely, Ram Chander had already expired; however, his legal heirs were not brought on record, therefore, partition proceedings against a dead man are nullity. With the aforesaid submissions, prayer has been made setting aside partition proceedings/sanad takseem.

5. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the paperbook with his able assistance.

6. Evidently, in the partition proceedings initiated at instance of respondent No. 4 (Ajay Pal), learned Assistant Collector issued notices to respective co-sharers. It appears that some of co-sharers appeared in the partition proceedings; however, for the service of remaining co-sharers (including the petitioner), learned Assistant Collector directed that service be effected through proclamation (mustri munadi). CWP-15221-2026 (O/M) -4-

6.1 It appears that after mustri munadi (proclamation) was carried out, even then many of respondents in the partition application (including the petitioner) did not appear, therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte, vide order dated 19.02.2024 (Annexure P-5) and some of other respondents in partition application, were proceeded against ex- parte, vide order dated 06.05.2024 (Annexure P-6).

6.2 Concededly, in the partition proceedings, the mode of partition came to be approved, vide order dated 30.10.2024 (Annexure P-7), the relevant clauses of which read as under :- “ Mode of Partition That Kheat No. 532//501, Khata No. 585, comprising a total area of 28 Kanal 06 Marla in Mauza Rohna is sought to be partitioned, and the partition thereof shall be carried out in the following manner :-

1. The first *khewat* (land parcel) shall be created in the name of the First Party.

2. The second *khewat* (land parcel) shall be created in the name of the Second Party.

3. The partition shall be carried out while maintaining the existing possession. A path (*rasta*) and watercourse (*khal*) shall be provided as per necessity. Tubewells, standing trees, and places of worship shall remain with the land parcel on which they are situated. Any excess or deficit in the area shall be adjusted from the adjoining land.

4. An excess of deficit of up to 2 Marlas shall not be subject to objection.

5. The tubewell shall be allotted to the share of the party to whom it belongs, and as far as possible, the land shall be allotted contiguous to the tubewell while creating a minimum number of lots (*kurras*).”

6.3 On the basis of aforesaid mode of partition, Naksha 'Kha' came to be approved, vide order dated 24.02.2025 (Annexure P-8), CWP-15221-2026 (O/M) -5- followed by Naksha 'Ga' being approved, vide order dated 27.03.2025 (Annexure P-9) and ultimately, sanad takseem (Annexure P-10) was issued. Thereafter, petitioner challenged the partition proceedings/sanad takseem before learned Divisional Commissioner, which was dismissed, vide order dated 17.02.2026 (Annexure P-15).

7. As regards first submission raised by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner has been wrongly proceeded against ex-parte without following the procedure prescribed under Section 20 of 1887 Act; suffice it to say that in the partition proceedings, notices were issued to co-sharers; whereupon some of co-sharers appeared and since petitioner and some other co-sharers did not appear, therefore, learned Assistant Collector directed service upon remaining co-sharers through mustri munadi (proclamation), which was duly carried out. It needs no reiteration that service through mustri munadi (proclamation) is one of the recognized mode of service under Section 20 (3) of 1887 Act, therefore, I find no merit in the plea raised by learned counsel for petitioner that service upon petitioner has not been effected as per Section 20 of 1887 Act.

7.1 As regards second contention that in the mode of partition, no separate khewat for the petitioner has been carved out; suffice it to say that once the petitioner did not participate in the partition proceedings nor there was any claim on his behalf for carving out a separate khewat for him, therefore, there was no occasion for learned Assistant Collector to have directed carving out a separate khewat for the petitioner. Accordingly, the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of petitioner is also rejected. CWP-15221-2026 (O/M) -6-

7.2 As regards the third contention that in the final partition, the possession of the petitioner has been disturbed, in this regard a specific query was raised to learned counsel for petitioner to point out from any document attached with the writ petition or otherwise, as to on which specific khasra numbers the petitioner was having exclusive possession regarding which the petitioner claims that his possession has been disturbed. In response to aforesaid query, learned counsel for petitioner has failed to refer to any material/document indicating the exclusive possession of petitioner over any specific khasra number. In view of the above, I see no merit in the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of petitioner and same is also rejected.

7.3 As regards fourth submission that one of respondents in the partition application, namely, Shri Ram Chand had expired and his legal heirs are not been impleaded as party, it is observed that no details have been provided by learned counsel for petitioner, as regards date on which Shri Ram Chand expired and on which date the mutation regarding inheritance of his estate was recorded in the name of his legal heirs in the revenue records. On account of absence of material particular dates, it is not possible for this Court to examine the aforesaid contentions being raised on behalf of petitioner. Even otherwise, in case Shri Ram Chand had already expired then that would give a cause of action for the legal heirs of Shri Ram Chand to raise an appropriate plea by availing their legal remedies in accordance with law; however, said ground would not be available to the petitioner to challenge the partition proceedings.

8. That apart, learned counsel for petitioner was specifically asked to point out from the site plan (Annexure P-13) as to CWP-15221-2026 (O/M) -7- what prejudice has been caused to petitioner by the manner in which share of respondent No. 4 and remaining co-sharers has been carved out; however, learned counsel for petitioner has failed to point out any such prejudice.

9. I have also gone through the site plan (Annexure P-13) wherein the area which has been allocated to respondent No. 4 (Ajay Pal) is depicted in brown colour and remaining area of khewat has been kept joint between other co-sharers (shown in green colour). It is noticed from the site plan that area allocated to respondent No. 4 (Ajay Pal) is far away from the passage and is adjoining to canal; whereas the block, which has been carved out for the petitioner and other co-sharers jointly, the same falls on both sides of passage and even a specific passage has been carved out on the northern side of khasra No. 13/3 and 14/1/2 for providing a passage to respondent No. 4 (Ajay Pal). The same very passage caters to the area of petitioner and other co-sharers as well. In my considered view, the partition appears to be just, fair and equitable, which does not call for any interference by this Court.

11. No other argument was raised/pressed. Considering the totality of circumstances, I find no merit in this writ petition and same is accordingly, dismissed.

12. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand closed. (HARSH BUNGER) JUDGE

27.05.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes / No Yes / No