IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN T AT CHANDIGAR UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH v. CWP-28844-2025
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN T AT CHANDIGAR UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH ADESH AND AND ANOTHER Versus CWP-28844-2025 (O&M) M) 25 Date of decision :12.11.2025 …Petitioners LD. DRO-CU CUM-COLLECTOR, ROHTAK A AK AND OTHERS …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HA E HARSH BUNGER Present : Mr. D.K. Tuteja, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Pankaj Mulwani, Sr. D.A.G. .A.G., Haryana. HARSH BUN H BUNGER, J. [ORAL] Prayer in the present writ p ticles writ petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of th 7 of the Constitution of India, is for is ature s for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari rari, for setting aside the order dated 10) r dated 20.08.2024 (Annexure P-10) passed by t by the learned Collector, Rohtak ated ohtak and also the order dated 12.03.2025 (A 025 (Annexure P-11) passed by the l htak y the learned Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Roh n, Rohtak. 2. Briefly, respondent No.3-Pa Pawan of sought partition of agricultural l tural land comprised in khewat No. 9 No.96//74 measuring 49 kanal-9 marlas (as p (as per jamabandi for the year 2 llage year 2020-21) situated at Village Brahmanwas, anwas, Tehsil and District Rohtak. 2.1 In the said partition proceedings 2) edings, naksha `ka’ (Annexure P-2) was prepared repared and thereafter, mode of pa was of partition (Annexure P-6) was
Legal Reasoning
GURPREET KAUR 2025.12.19 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh 7 Page 1 of 7 prepared on 20.06.2023. Thereafter, naksha `kha’ was received on the file and objections of the parties were called thereto; whereupon, some of the co-sharers (respondents No.3 to 6, herein) submitted their separate objections; however, the same were rejected by the learned Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Rohtak vide order dated 28.02.2024 (Annexure P-9) and consequently, naksha `kha’ was approved. 2.2 Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 28.02.2024 (Annexure P-9), respondent No.3-Pawan preferred an appeal before the learned Collector, Rohtak, which came to be allowed vide order dated 20.08.2024 (Annexure P-10). 2.3 Being dissatisfied, the present petitioners preferred an appeal against order dated 20.08.2024 (Annexure P-10) before the learned Commissioner, Rohtak. Similarly, respondents No.4 to 6 herein preferred their revision petition against order dated 20.08.2024 (Annexure P-10) before the learned Commissioner, Rohtak. Both the afore-said cases (appeal and revision) came to be dismissed vide common order dated 12.03.2025 (Annexure P-11) passed by the learned Commissioner, Rohtak. 2.4 In the afore-mentioned circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners before this Court, for the relief as noticed here-in-above. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Collector as well as the learned Commissioner, have erred in law and fact in passing the impugned order. It is submitted that as per the mode of partition (Annexure P-6), the partition was to be carried out by keeping the possession intact; however, vide impugned orders, the possession of the petitioners over killa No.52//2 (6-18) has been disturbed. It is further submitted that the learned Collector, while passing the order dated GURPREET KAUR 2025.12.19 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Page 2 of 7 20.08.2024 (Annexure P-10) has given directions to carry out partition in a particular manner; inasmuch as that the area of respondents No.4 to 6 herein has been directed to be completed from killa No.52//2/2 and 8/2 and a further directions has been given to provide rasta from killa No.52//8/2. It is contended that such kind of directions to provide rasta from a valuable land abutting the road so as to facilitate the entry of a co-sharer to another killa is arbitrary. It is next submitted that the learned Collector had further erred in not allotting killa No.52//7 to the petitioners and that the petitioners have been wrongly allocated area in rectangle No.77. 3.1 With the afore-said submissions, prayer for setting aside the impugned order has been made. 4. 5. Heard. At the outset, it would be relevant to refer to the mode of partition (Annexure P-6), the relevant extract of which reads as under :- “1. That the land for partition is 49 Kanal 09 Marla, which is to be partitioned. 2. That while partitioning, a total of three khewats will be made, in which, the first khewat will be of the applicant, the second khewat will be of respondents No.1 and 3 and the third khewat will be of respondents No.4 and 5. Before making the Naksha (Khe), the khewats can be made more or less as per the request made by the parties. 3. That the land will be partitioned while retaining possession. Few kurras will be constructed. Possession can also be broken if required. 4. That while partitioning, every kurra will be allotted a passage, khaal and abpasi as per the requirement whose land will be cut from the joint area. The deficiency will be met from the adjoining area. 5. That the tubewell and room will be given to the person who owns it.” GURPREET KAUR 2025.12.19 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Page 3 of 7 5.1 A perusal of Clause 3 of the above-extracted mode of partition would show that although, the land is to be partitioned by retaining the possession; however, it also provides that the possession can be broken, if required. Further, Clause 5 of the mode of partition provides that the tubewell and the room will be given to the person, who owns it. 6. Apparently, in the partition proceedings, respondent No.3 and respondents No.4 to 6, have submitted their objections to naksha `kha’, which can be summarized as under :- (i) area comprised in killa No.52//2/1, 2/2, 3/1/1 and 3/1/2 are adjoining the road and therefore, more valuable than the other land; whereas, the objectors have not been given area adjoining the road as per their shares; (ii) respondents No.4 and 6, herein (respondents No.1 and 3 in the partition application) be given land on the eastern side of killa No.3/1 and by doing so, their area will get consolidated with their other land forming part of a separate khewat; (iii) there is no passage to killa Nos.52//7 and 14; accordingly, it was claimed that killa No.52//7 be given to respondents No.4 and 6, herein and in lieu thereof, respondent No.3-Pawan be given area in killa Nos.77//3/1 and 3/3. 7. The afore-said objections came to be dismissed by the learned Assistant Collector, vide order dated 28.02.2024 (Annexure P-9) by observing as under :- “I have carefully perused the file and the facts came on the file and have heard both the learned counsels carefully. Naksha “Khe” has been prepared in the presence of both the parties in the Halqa Girdawar, which has been preparing while maintaining the possession as per the mode of partition. The objections raised by the parties with regard to the Naksha “Khe” are baseless, so the same are dismissed. Tubewell etc. has been given, to which it is belongs. So Naksha “Khe” is correct as per the mode of partition and the same is approved. Page 4 of 7 GURPREET KAUR 2025.12.19 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh The file be presented on 29.03.2024 and the Naksha “Ghe” be summoned from the Halqa Patwari after expiry of the limitation.” 8. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent No.3 and respondents No.4 to 6, challenged the afore-said order dated 28.02.2024 (Annexure P-9) by filing their separate appeals, which came to be disposed of vide common order dated 20.08.2024 (Annexure P-10) by holding 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.” GURPREET KAUR 2025.12.19 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Page 5 of 7 8.1 The afore-said order dated 20.08.2024 (Annexure P-10) has been further affirmed by the learned Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, vide order dated 12.03.2025 (Annexure P-11). 8.2 As per Naksha `Bey’ (Annexure P-11/A), petitioners namely, Adesh and Yogesh, have been given the following area :- Rectangle//Killa No. Area (K-M) 24//15/1/3 52//2/1 77//3/3 8/3/1 1 – 16 4 – 03 4 – 00 2 – 06 12 - 5 8.3 When the area allotted to petitioners is seen in the context of aks-shajra/site plan (Annexure P-11/B), which is stated to be prepared on the basis of order dated 12.03.2025 (Annexure P-11), it is observed that no prejudice is caused to the petitioners by the manner in which the area has been allocated to them. It appears that the petitioners are wanting more frontage/area out of land comprised in Rectangle No.52, Killa No.2, 3/1, which is stated to be more valuable. In my considered view, the directions given by the learned Collector are in the nature of adjustments of areas allocated to different co-sharers so as to balance their inter-se interests and to make the partition of areas more equitable and fair. 8.4 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.), GURPREET KAUR 2025.12.19 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Page 6 of 7 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. 9. 10. No other point has been urged. Keeping in view the above discussion, I find no merit in the
Legal Reasoning
submissions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners and the same are rejected. Resultantly, the instant writ petition fails and the same is accordingly, dismissed. 11. All pending applications (if any) shall also stand closed. November 12, 2025 gurpreet (HARSH BUNGER) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No GURPREET KAUR 2025.12.19 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Page 7 of 7