JUDGMENT :

Harsh Bunger, J. [Oral]

1. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari, for setting aside the order dated 04.09.2024 (Annexure P-11); vide which, the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak has directed the petitioner to file a case in a Competent Court for cancellation of Mutation no.9276 (Annexure P-4), which is stated to be entered/sanctioned on 21.07.2003, in view of the instrument of partition dated 10.12.2002 (Annexure P-2) issued by the learned Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Sampla.

2. Briefly, respondent Nos.6 to 8 filed an application seeking partition of joint land measuring 214 kanals-18 marlas, situate at Village Hasangarh, Tehsil Sampla, District Rohtak, wherein the petitioner was also one of the co-sharers. It appears that the afore-said partition proceedings culminated into the drawing of an instrument of partition dated 10.12.2002. It transpires that the Sanad Takseem came to be challenged by respondent No.9 (Smt. Savita d/o Sh. Manohar Lal), by way of filing an appeal before the learned Collector, Rohtak, who vide his order dated 24.12.2003 (Annexure P-6) set aside the partition proceedings/Sanad Takseem dated 10.12.2002 and remanded the case back to the learned Assistant Collector, for carrying out the partition proceedings afresh.

2.1 It appears that upon remand, the partition application was dismissed for non-prosecution and thereafter, respondent No.9-Smt. Savita submitted an application seeking restoration of possession, which came to be decided by the learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sampla vide order dated 09.12.2005 (Annexure P-10) by observing as under :-

"Case file put up, parties were called. None is present amongst the applicant, respondent no.3 (appellant) is present along with counsel. The counsel has requested that the instrument of partition has been cancelled in the appeal and an application under section 144 C.P.C. was filed on 06.08.2004 that the parties be restored as they were before final partition order. This fact was considered and I reached at this conclusion that the mutation of partition, copy of which is produced by respondent no.3, is necessarily required to be cancelled due to setting aside of the entire partition proceedings in appeal in order to restore the parties at earlier position. Therefore, it be written to the field staff for proceedings to cancel the mutation, so that the revenue record be restored. Respondent no.3 (Appellant) made statement that I do not want to continue the partition proceedings rather the revenue record be restored as it was earlier. Therefore, the file is consigned in view of above statement of party."

2.2 It is borne out from the paper book that the petitioner submitted an application dated 03.05.2024, seeking cancellation of Mutation No.9276, to the learned Deputy Collector, Rohtak; however, the same has been disposed of vide letter/order dated 04.09.2024 (Annexure P-11), by observing as under :-

"In reference to your application dated 03.05.2024 on the above subject. In the abovementioned subject matter, you are informed that inspection was got done by Tehsildar, Sampla. It is mentioned in his report that report was taken from Patwari Halka. According to the report, the Mutation No.9276 of the land describe in the application has been entered on 10.07.2003 and approved on 21.07.2003 on the basis Partition case no.16/N.T. decided on 10.12.2002, which has been incorporated in the Jamabandi for the year 2003-2004. The complainant wants to cancel this partition mutation. According to the application, appeal was filed on 28.07.2003 against case number 16/N.T. in the Court of District Revenue Officer, Rohtak. No any stay order or any other order is found to be entered in the record in relation to the appeal. During the said partition 4 Khewats were carved out, out of which 1 Khewat is for road and drain. During this period, after mutation no.9276