JUDGMENT :

Harsh Bunger, J. (Oral)

1. This order shall dispose of two writ petitions, bearing CWP-3035-2022 and CWP-13719-2022 and for the purpose of passing this order, the facts are being taken from CWP-3035-2022.

2. The present petition (CWP-3035-2022) has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India inter alia seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for setting aside order dated 24.12.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Collector, Charkhi Dadri and order dated 12.10.2021 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak.

3. Briefly, the petitioner had filed application(s) dated 03.05.2017 (Annexure P-3) seeking partition of joint land comprised in Khewat No.263/215, measuring 183 kanals 10 marlas situated within the revenue estate of Village Dudhwa, Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri, as per jamabandi for the year 2014-15.

4. It transpires that the partition proceedings culminated with the drawing of Sanad Takseem (instrument of partition) dated 01.05.2019 (Annexure P-11).

5. The aforesaid partition proceedings came to be challenged by way of two appeals i.e. one filed by Anand Kumar (respondent No.5 in CWP-3035-2022) and another appeal filed by Rajbir Singh and three others (respondents No.5 to 8 in CWP-13719-2022). Both the said appeals were allowed vide order dated 24.12.2019 (Annexure P-1), passed by the learned Collector, Charkhi Dadri, whereby the partition proceedings were set aside and the matter(s) was/were remanded to the learned Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Charkhi Dadri for fresh decision.

6. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated 24.12.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Collector, Charkhi Dadri, the petitioner(s) herein preferred two appeals before the learned Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, which came to be dismissed by a common order dated 12.10.2021 (Annexure P-2).

7. In the aforementioned circumstances, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition(s) before this Court for the reliefs as noticed hereinabove.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Collector had wrongly assumed jurisdiction in the matter, as no appeal is maintainable to the learned Collector after the issuance of Sanad Takseem and the only remedy available to the party aggrieved is to challenge the same before the learned Commissioner under Section 16 of the Haryana Land Revenue Act or by way of filing a writ petition before this Court.

8.1 In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) relies upon a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of "Amar Khan and others vs. State of Punjab and others, 2009 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 741. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned orders are unsustainable in the eyes of law and the same be set aside.

9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 (in CWP-3035-2022) and for respondent No.9 (in CWP-13719-2022) submits that the application for partition was submitted by the petitioner on 20.03.2017 and therefore, the petitioner was required to challenge the order passed by learned Collector before the learned Financial Commissioner and not before learned Divisional Commissioner. It is further submitted that in the final partition, the respondent has been allocated land in three separate blocks, which amounted to bifurcation/fragmentation of his land and therefore the learned Collector has rightly set aside the partition proceedings and no interference therein is called for. Accordingly, prayer for dismissal of writ petition has been made.

10. Heard.

11. As regards the contention raised by learned counsel for respondent No.5 (in CWP-3035-2022) and for respondent No.9 (in CWP-13719-2022) that the learned Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain revision filed by petitioner as the same would lie before learned Financial Commissioner because the application for partition was submitted by the petitioner on 20.03.2017, it is observed from the certified copy of the par