SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top