138 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-7125-2025 (O/M)

Date of decision : 17.03.2025 Smt. Birwati ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present :- Mr. Aditya Jain, Mr. Yatin Mehta, Mr. Kanan Jain, Advocates for the petitioner.

Ms. Upasana Dhawan, AAG Haryana.

-.- -.-

HARSH BUNGER, J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioner (Birwati) has filed the instant civil writ petition under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 25.11.2024 (Annexure P-6), passed by learned Commissioner, Gurugram Division, Gurugram (in short 'Divisional Commissioner').

2. Briefly, respondents No. 4 and 5 herein, (namely, Smt. Sudha Yadav and Smt. Vidya Devi), filed 4 applications seeking partition of joint land comprised in four separate khewats. It appears that all the four partition applications were ordered to be clubbed and a combined mode of partition dated 10.07.2024 (Annexure P-1) was proposed.

2.1 It appears that the petitioner (who is stated to be respondent No. 6 in the partition application) was proceeded against ex-parte in the aforesaid partition proceedings. However, an application for setting aside ex-parte proceedings submitted by present petitioner, was allowed by Assistant Collector, vide order dated 05.06.2024 and the petitioner was permitted to join the partition proceedings from that stage onwards. Thereafter, the mode of partition was proposed on 10.07.2024 and objections of the co-sharers were called for. It transpires that since no objections were received from any of the parties to the proposed mode of partition, the same came to be sanctioned on 24.07.2024 and Naksha 'Bey' was called from the field staff. On receipt of Naksha 'Bey' from the field staff, objections thereto were called from the respective co-sharers. Since none of the co-sharers submitted any objections to Naksha 'Bey', accordingly, the same was approved by Assistant Collector 2^nd Grade, Harsaru, vide order dated 07.08.2024. Thereafter, Naksha 'Zeem' was also confirmed by learned Assistant Collector, 2^nd Grade, Harsaru, vide order dated 09.09.2024.

2.2 It appears that the petitioner as well as the proforma respondents challenged the partition proceedings including order dated 24.07.2024 (Annexure P-3) whereby mode of partition was sanctioned; order dated 07.08.2024 whereby Naksha 'Bey' was approved and also order dated 09.09.2024 whereby Naksha 'Zeem' was approved; by filing their separate revision petitions before learned Divisional Commissioner, however, the same were dismissed, vide a common order dated 25.11.2024 (Annexure P-6).

3. In the aforementioned circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the instant civil writ petition before this Court.

4. Heard.

5. The only argument raised by learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner was not afforded due opportunity to file objections to mode of partition.

6. I have considered the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for petitioner, however, I do not find any merit in the same. A perusal of the zimni orders would reveal that although the petitioner (who was respondent No. 6 in the partition application) was proceeded against ex-parte on 22.03.2024, however, on an application being submitted by her (petitioner), the ex-parte proceedings against her were set aside vide order dated 05.06.2024 and the petitioner was permitted to join the partition proceedings from that stage onwards. Thereafter, the mode of partition came to be proposed on 10.07.2024 and objections thereto were called from the respective co-sharers; however, since no objections were received to the proposed mode of partition, the same was sanctioned vide order dated 24.07.2024 (Annexure P-3). Once the petitioner was allowed to join partition proceedings prior to stage of proposing Mode of Partition and petitioner having failed to submit any objection to the proposed Mode of Pa