The main legal point established in the judgment is that a sanad can only be challenged through specific legal procedures, and the court emphasized the importance of following the legal framework for challenging partition orders and transferring possession.

JUDGMENT

Sudhir Mittal, J. - This judgment shall dispose of the aforementioned writ petition and the connected contempt petition.

2. The petitioner and the private respondents are brothers being sons of Ram Kishan. The dispute between them is regarding partition of their joint holding measuring 2226 kanal 15 marlas.

3. Respondent No.5-Bishan Devi widow of Kailash Chand son of Ram Kishan moved an application dated 30.10.2002 for partition of the joint holding. The petitioner filed a reply thereto and raised a preliminary objection that the land stood partitioned in the year 1975 and that parties are in their respective individual possession. The Assistant Collector, First Grade, Dharuhera, proposed a mode of partition (Annexure P-3) inter alia providing therein that possession, type of land and cultivation be kept in mind, the area in which a party had constructed a tubewell be given to it and area falling on road/village be given as per share. Spot inspection was conducted on 15.6.2004 and the possession of respective parties was verified. On the same day, parties were heard and objections were considered. The objection that possession had not been respected, was rejected on the ground that certain adjustments were necessary to give effect to the condition of providing area adjoining the road and the village in accordance with respective shares. Naksha Bey was sanctioned on the same day and Naksha Zeem was called for 23.7.2004. Thereafter, the matter remained pending for three years and another spot inspection was conducted on 5.4.2007. Directions were given to prepare amended Naksha Bey on 7.8.2008. Amended Naksha Bey was presented on the same day and was accepted. Naksha Zeem was called for 24.10.2007. It was, however, sanctioned on 14.11.2007 and sanad takseem was issued thereafter.

4. Thereafter, Bishan Devi-respondent No.5 and Sewa Ramrespondent No.7 filed two separate appeals challenging order dated 16.5.2007 and 26.9.2007. The appeals were allowed vide order dated 16.2.2009 and the orders impugned therein were set-aside. The matter was remanded to the Assistant Collector, First Grade with a direction to requisition Naksha Bey once again. Consequently, Naksha Bey was again called for and sanctioned on 22.1.2013. The petitioner challenged the aforementioned order by way of appeal, but the same was dismissed. Revision before the Financial Commissioner was also dismissed. Another sanad dated 10.2.2015 was issued. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. The first and foremost argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier, a sanad takseem had been issued, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P-11. Thereafter, the appeals filed by Bishan Devi-respondent No.5 and Sewa Ram-respondent No.7 challenging order dated 16.5.2007 and 26.9.2007 were not maintainable. Order dated 16.2.2009 passed thereupon was without jurisdiction as were all subsequent proceedings. After preparation of sanad takseem, the same could have been challenged only before the Financial Commissioner or before this Court and any orders passed before that could not have been challenged by way of appeal. It has also been argued that the mode of partition has been violated as the petitioner has not been granted any frontage on the main road, possession has been distributed and only one marla of land in khasra No.22, where the tubewell of the petitioner exists, has been given to him. It has also been argued that this Court had ordered status quo regarding possession on 1.7.2015 and the petitioner has been dispossessed thereafter. Thus, the private respondents also deserve to be proceeded against under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

6. On behalf of the private respondents, it has been argued that consequent to issuance of sanad on 10.2.2015 warrants of possession dated 8.4.2015 were issued and mutation of partition was entered on 3.6.2015 after possession was transferred on 18.5.2015. The report of transfer of possession