2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 913
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
JAI PARKASH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER – Respondent
##PAGE1##
CWP No.2570 of 2025 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP NO.2570 OF 2025 (O&M)
Jai Parkash ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
1. The date when the judgment is reserved 20.01.2026
2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 30.01.2026
3. The date when the judgment is uploaded 31.01.2026
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full
pronounced or whether the full judgment is
pronounced
5. The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full Not applicable
judgment, and reasons thereof
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present : Mr. Jaspal Singh Pannu, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Himanshu Bansal, Advocate,
For respondent No.4.
LAPITA BANERJI, J.
Prayer in the present writ petition filed under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution of India is, inter-alia, for issuance of a writ in the nature
of certiorari for quashing of the impugned order dated March 29, 2022
(Annexure P-5) passed by the Commissioner, Gurugram Division-
respondent No.2, under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and
Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the
“1948 Act”). The petitioner has furthermore sought correction of entries
recorded in the Field Book of the jamabandis for the year 2016-17.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
Page 1 of 4
1 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 03-02-2026 15:29:29 :::
##PAGE2##CWP No.2570 of 2025 (O&M)
i) The petitioner through his predecessors-in-interest has been in
continuous possession of the land situated at Khewat No.320 Khatoni
No.350 Killa No.35//6/2 in village Karoli, Sub Tehsil Nahar, Tehsil Kosli,
District Rewari.
ii) The consolidation proceedings for village Karoli, District
Rewari were conducted in the year 1962-63. The area of disputed land in
the east to west direction was recorded as 36-36 karams and in the north to
south direction was recorded as 16-16 karams in the Aks Shajra (site plan).
iii) The Field Book of the jamabandis for the year 2016-17
recorded the area as 36-36 karams in the east to west direction but 14-14
karams in the north to south direction. Therefore, the petitioner has
contended that the measurement of his land was wrongly recorded in the
Field Book of jamabandis for the year 2016-17 as 02 Kanals 16 Marlas
instead of 03 Kanals 04 Marlas was noted.
iv) The petitioner filed an application under Section 42 of the
1948 Act seeking correction in the aforesaid Field Book entries. The
respondent No.2-Commissioner, vide impugned order dated March 29,
2022 dismissed the petitioner’s application.
v) Challenging the aforesaid impugned order, the petitioner has
filed the instant petition.
SUBMISSIONS
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits
that without summoning the records and without application of mind, the
impugned order has been passed by respondent No.2- Commissioner. The
petitioner’s grievance was that in the Field Book of jamabandis for the year
Page 2 of 4
2 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 03-02-2026 15:29:29 :::
##PAGE3##CWP No.2570 of 2025 (O&M)
2016-17 it was erroneously recorded the petitioner’s land admeasured 02
kanals 16 marlas instead of 03 kanals 04 marlas. Such an entry was not in
consonance with the consolidation scheme. Respondent No.2, instead of
verifying the Aks Shajra and the consolidation scheme, only relied upon the
field book to arbitrarily dismiss the application of the petitioner.
4. Mr. Mago, learned State counsel appeared on advance notice
for assistance of the Court.
5. In order to resolve the issue, this Court on November 10, 2025
passed the following order:
“xxx
Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends
that “Aks Shajras’ appended as Annexures P-2 and P-8 clearly
reveal that the land in question is 36x16 karams and thus,
admeasuring 3 kanals 4 marlas.
Learned State counsel on the other hand relies on a field
book to state that the land in question is 36x14 karams
therefore, admeasuring only 2 kanals 16 marlas.
In an attempt to resolve the