JUDGMENT :

HARSH BUNGER, J.

1. Petition herein is, inter alia, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for setting aside order dated 15.09.2025 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Hodal, as well as the order dated 13.11.2025 (Annexure P-9) passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Faridabad.

2. Briefly, respondent No.4 - Sushila filed an application seeking partition of joint land measuring 18 Kanal-8 Marla.

2.1 During the pendency of the said partition proceedings, respondent No.8 – Tek Chand @ Rohtas sold his share in the joint land, measuring 6 Kanal-2 Marla, in favour of the petitioner vide Sale Deed dated 25.08.2022 (Annexure P-1). The petitioner claims that in pursuance of the said Sale Deed, the land comprised in Rectangle No. 219, Killa No.12/2 (5-3) and the remaining 19 Marla out of Killa No. 12/2/1, also came into his possession.

2.2 It is further stated that respondent No.4 – Sushila also executed an Agreement to Sell dated 10.05.2023 (Annexure P-3) in favour of the petitioner during the pendency of the partition proceedings, whereunder she received a sum of Rs.1 lakh as earnest money.

2.3 Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Suit for Specific Performance of the said Agreement to Sell, wherein the learned Civil Court, vide order dated 11.04.2025 (Annexure P-5), restrained respondent No.4 – Sushila from alienating her land.

2.4 It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of 6 Kanal-2 Marla of land on the strength of the Sale Deed dated 25.08.2022 (Annexure P-1) and is further in possession of land measuring 2 Kanal in pursuance of the Agreement to Sell dated 10.05.2023 (Annexure P-3).

2.5 The petitioner states that he was not a party to the partition proceedings and that respondent No.8 – Tek Chand @ Rohtas did not inform him about the pendency of the said proceedings. However, when the petitioner came to know about the order dated 12.08.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Hodal, and the subsequent issuance of Sanad Takseem dated 15.09.2025, he made inquiries and found out that he would not be allotted a contiguous piece of land as regards the area purchased by him vide Sale Deed dated 25.08.2022 (Annexure P-1), as well as the 2 Kanal land claimed by him under the Agreement to Sell dated 10.05.2023 (Annexure P-3).

2.6 Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the learned Divisional Commissioner, Faridabad, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 13.11.2025 (Annexure P-9).

3. In the aforementioned circumstances, petitioner has filed the instant writ petition before this Court seeking relief(s), as noticed hereinabove.

4. Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated only one contention that in the final partition, the petitioner would not be allotted a contiguous piece of land in respect of the area purchased by him vide Sale Deed dated 25.08.2022 (Annexure P-1), as well as the 2 Kanal area which he claims to be in possession of on the strength of the Agreement to Sell dated 10.05.2023 (Annexure P-3).

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book with their able assistance.

6. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner before this Court was also urged before the learned Divisional Commissioner, Faridabad, who, after due consideration, rightly rejected the same vide order dated 13.11.2025 (Annexure P-9), by observing as under:-

"After hearing the counsel for revisionist, it was found that the revisionist has purchased 6 Kanals 2 Marlas of land out of the land in dispute from the respondent No.1 in the application for partition in the Lower Court of Assistant Collector First Class-cum-Tehsildar, Hodal and has entered into agreement for the land measuring 2 Kanal with respondent No.3/Smt. Seema. The said 6 Kanals 2 Marlas of land has been purchased in Shamlat Khata. As per the revenue record, the revisionist has been given share in all the Killa numbers from