IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision :18.02.2026 Vazir Singh and others …….Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ..…Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present : Mr. Anish Verma, Advocate with Mr. Mukesh K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Upasana Dhawan, AAG, Haryana.

***

HARSH BUNGER, J. [ORAL]

Prayer in the present petition, inter alia, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for setting aside the order dated 28.08.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Divisional Commissioner, Karnal Division, Karnal.

2. Briefly, present petitioners and respondent No.4 are stated to be real brothers and co-sharers of joint land (comprised in Khewat No.269), measuring 95 kanals - 07 marlas (as per jamabandi for the year 2019-20)

situated at Mauza Mataur, Tehsil Kalayat, District Kaithal.

3. The present petitioners filed an application seeking partition of the aforesaid joint land before the learned Assistant Collector, 1^st Grade, Kalayat. Evidently, respondent No.4 was proceeded against ex parte on

10.02.2022, however, subsequently on an application being filed by respondent No.4, the ex parte proceedings against him were set aside.

4. In the partition proceedings, after the preparation of mode of partition, Naksha Bey was called from the field staff. Upon receipt of the Naksha Bey, respondent No.4 filed objections to Naksha Bey, which reads as under:-

“The objecting respondent raises the following objections:

1. That, in the above application for partition, the map "B" prepared by the field officer has been prepared by completely ignoring the rules of partition and the map has been prepared by the field officer only while sitting in the office, whereas as per law, it is mandatory to prepare the map in the presence of all the parties by visiting the spot and taking their opinion and keeping in mind the interests of all the parties.

2. The land is situated on the Ramgarh Mator Road. However, as per the map "B" prepared by the field officer, the portion of land of the objecting respondent, according to which the respondent has been given his share on the backside instead of the portion of land as per his share on the front of the said Ramgarh Mator Road. However, the portion of land on the front of this road is very expensive and is equivalent to commercial category land, whereas the portion of land allotted to the respondent is of lesser value. Therefore, the existing map of the portion of land is completely wrong and requires amendment.

3. That in a common land, all the shareholders are equal partners in the price and quality of the land; depriving any one shareholder of the good quality or good price of the common land as per his share is a violation of his rights.

4. That not to allot the share of land to the Objector as per the value of land according to the existing map "B" proves the collusion of the field officer with the applicant.

5. That if the partition proceedings are finalised on the basis of the existing map "B", then the interests and rights of the objecting respondent will be severely damaged and there will be no justification for the partition.

Therefore, it is requested that keeping in view the above objections of the objector/respondent, the existing map "B" should be cancelled and a revised map "B" should be prepared again and, as per the reply, claim and objection of the objector/respondent, he should also be given the area as per his share on the front of Ramgarh Mator Road and a separate share should also be made for him.

It will be just.”

5. The aforesaid objections came to be rejected by the learned Assistant Collector vide order 05.12.2023 (Annexure P-15). The relevant extract of the same reads as under:-

“File presented today. Counsels of both the parties are present. After hearing arguments of both the parties and after perusing the objections filed by the respondent, the above objections are dismissed. Now the case be presented for Deed of Partition