The main legal point established in the judgment is that land on the road should be divided amongst all the co-sharers in proportion to their share in the total land holding, as per the Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral) - The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 31.03.2022 (Annexure P-15) passed by respondent No.1 vide which the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 25.06.2014 (Annexure P-13) passed by respondent No.2 was dismissed. Challenge is also to the order dated 27.12.2013 (Annexure P-11) passed by respondent No.3 as well as to the order dated 30.05.2013 (Annexure P-9), order dated 13.06.2013 (Annexure P-10) and order dated 25.06.2014 (Annexure P-13).

2. Brief facts of the case are that an application for partition of land measuring 81 K - 16 M comprised in Khewat No.959, Khata No.1385, situated at village Muana Tehsil Safidon, District Jind as per jamabandi for the year 2005-2006 was filed by Mamu (respondent No.6), Ombir (respondent No.7), Rameshwar (respondent No.8) and Deepak Kumar (respondent No.9). A copy of the said application for partition has been annexed as Annexure P-1. The present petitioner was impleaded as respondent No.6 in the said application. In the said application, it was averred that it was necessary to partition the land after taking into consideration the passages etc. and also the nature/kind of land i.e., land abutting the road and the land situated away from the road and the same be partitioned equally between the parties and share of the applicants/respondents No.6 to 9 herein be separated by making one chunk. The present petitioner was initially proceeded against ex-parte, but on an application of the petitioner for setting aside the said exparte order, the same was set aside. After hearing the parties, the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Safidon, vide order dated 16.05.2013 (Annexure P-7) passed the mode of partition. Objections were filed by the original applicants/respondents No.6 to 9 (herein) against the said mode of partition and after considering their objections and hearing the parties, vide order dated 30.05.2013, (Annexure P-9) a fresh mode of partition was prepared. (The correct copy of the said mode of partition dated 30.05.2013 (Anenxure P-9) has been placed on record by counsel for the petitioner by filing an application bearing CRM-6176-2023, as the original order dated 30.05.2013 (Annexure P-9) filed alongwith the writ petition was not correctly translated). Paragraph 5 of the said mode of partition (Annexure P-9) is reproduced herein below: -

'5. The partition of the above said land will be done keeping in view the value, road front. If the possession of the land is disturbed by giving equal road front then it should be done."

A perusal of the above-said clause would show that it was specifically ordered that the partition of the said land will be done keeping in view the value of the land as well as the road front and in case the possession of the land is disturbed for giving equal road front, then, the same should be done. No appeal against the said order was filed within a period of 15 days as is mandated under Section 118(2) of the Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887. No objections were filed against the said mode of partition by the petitioner. The matter was proceeded further and vide order dated 13.06.2013 (Annexure P-10), it was ordered that the Naksha Bay be prepared. The zimni orders thereafter have not been placed on record. After the passing of order dated 13.06.2013, an appeal was filed by the present petitioner in which challenge was also made to the order dated 30.05.2013. The said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 27.12.2013 (It would be relevant to note that the date of institution of the said appeal has been mentioned as 10.01.2013 in the translated copy annexed as Annexure P-11, but the said date is apparently incorrect as the appeal had been filed against the order dated 13.06.2013 as well as order dated 30.05.2013 and even the vernacular which has been annexed alongwith