IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 26.02.2026 Parkash Chand and others ....Petitioners Vs.

Commissioner, Faridabad Division, Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present: Mr. Sakal Sikri, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Pankaj Mulwani, Sr. DAG, Hayana.

*****

HARSH BUNGER J. (Oral)

1 Petition herein is, inter alia, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for setting aside the order dated 23.07.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Assistant Collector 2^nd Grade, Faridabad and order dated 04.02.2026 (Annexure P-10) passed by learned Commissioner, Faridabad Divison, Faridabad.

2. Briefly, respondents No.3 and 4 herein sought partition of joint land measuring 63 kanals 1 marla situated at village Badauli, Tehsil & District Faridabad. The present petitioners appeared in the aforesaid partition proceedings and submitted their reply, inter alia, taking a plea that in the year 2000, a mutual partition had already taken place between the parties.

3. In the aforesaid partition proceedings, mode of partition came to be prepared; the relevant extract of the same reads as under:-

“..1. Total area under partition -63 Kanal 01 Marla

2. Separate Khewat be provided to applicants while conducting partition.

3. Separate Khewat be provided to respondents while conducting partition.

4. Passage, possession of land, construction, source of irrigation, trees etc. be kept in mind while conducting partition.

5. Difference upto two marla while conducting partition is avoidable.

6. Partition fee is fixed as Rs.4,500/-..”

4. It appears that on the basis of aforesaid mode of partition, the partition papers namely Naksha Bey and Naksha Jeem were prepared and the partition came to be finally allowed vide order dated 23.07.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Assistant Collector 2^nd Grade, Faridabad and the Sanad Takseem came to be issued on 08.08.2025 (Annexure P-7).

5. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid partition proceedings/Sanad Takseem, petitioners preferred a revision petition before the learned Commissioner, Faridabad, which has been dismissed vide order dated 04.02.2026 (Annexure P-10).

6. In view of the aforementioned circumstances, present petition has been filed before this Court, for seeking relief(s) as noted hereinabove.

7. Heard.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has primarily raised two objections, firstly, that the learned Assistant Collector had framed wrong mode of partition and it does not bear the essential ingredients of the mode of partition as notified vide memo dated 24.03.2022 (Annexure P-4). Secondly, it is submitted that the petitioners have not been allocated land comprised in rectangle No.38, killa Nos. 8/2(2-7) and 13/2(1-13), therefore, the partition proceedings are inequitable and liable to be set aside.

9. As regards the first contention, that the learned Assistant Collector 2^nd Grade, Faridabad had prepared a wrong mode of partition, which does not contain the essential ingredients as mentioned in the memo No. 24.03.2022 (Annexure P-4), suffice it to say, that when the mode of partition was proposed in the present partition proceedings, the petitioners herein had not raised any objections thereto. Accordingly, the mode of partition came to be approved and the partition proceedings were carried out. In case, the petitioners had any grievance against the mode of partition, then they should have submitted their objections at the relevant time when the mode of partition was initially proposed or the same should have been challenged before the higher authorities in accordance with law; however, no such recourse was adopted by the petitioners. Accordingly, I find no substance in the first contention raised on behalf of the petitioners and the same is rejected.

10. As regards the second contention, that the petitioners have not been allocated any land comprised in rectangle No.38, killa Nos. 8/2 and 13/2; it is observed that the aforesaid contention was duly re