IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 12.11.2025 SHYAM LAL AND OTHERS . .Appellants Versus SAJJAN SINGH AND OTHERS . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI PRESENT: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Bikram Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate and Ms. Devika Kamboj, Advocate for the respondents.

****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 25.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge by which, civil writ petition No. 24038 of 2025 filed by the appellants challenging the impugned orders dated 11.10.2022 (Annexure P-4), 20.12.2022 (Annexure P-6), 31.01.2023 (Annexure P-7) and 14.03.2023 (Annexure P-8) has been dismissed and the partition proceedings of the land between the parties has been upheld.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that the question raised before the learned single judge that the predecessors-in-interest of the appellants had expired long time ago and they have been impleaded as proforma respondents in the partition application of the land hence, the said partition proceedings is void, having been initiated agaisnt the dead persons, which fact has been ignored by the revenue authorities as well as learned single judge while upholding the partition proceedings and therefore, the said partition proceedings may kindly be set-aside so as to be conducted again.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the partition which has been done is in such a manner that the land which has been given to the respondent is on the main road whereas, the land which has been given to the appellant is far away from the main road and the only katcha rasta has been provided to enter the said land, hence, the said partition done is incorrect and causing prejudice to the appellants which fact has also been ignored by the learned Single Judge, while upholding the decision of the revenue authority.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that only one document (Annexure P-16) has been attached at page No.154 of the paper book on the basis of which the arguments have been raised by the appellants but there are two parcels of land which has been partitioned between the parties. In one of the parcel of land, the total land belonging to the appellants have been given on the main road, which fact has been withheld from the Court.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the land which has been given to the appellants, which has been shown in blue colour in map (Annexure P-16) on page No. 154 has been given because the same was already in the possession of the appellants as their houses have been constructed on the said land and it is only keeping in view the mode of partition decided whereas, the possession should be disturbed to be minimum, the land in question has been given to the appellants which was in their possession as they were residing in the said portion of the land and their houses were constructed by them.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents further argues that the partition was made keeping in view the revenue records and in the revenue record no entry was made qua the dead person, further the notices were issued to such persons, which were refused by the legal heirs of the dead person, who were living in the same address and thereafter, the mustri munadi (proclamation) was got conducted as well as notices were pasted outside the houses and it was only when none appeared in pursuance of the said munadi, the partition proceedings were started hence, it cannot be said that the appellants did not have the knowledge of the partition proceedings.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file with their able assistance.

8. It may be noticed that the revenue authorities upon receiving the application for partition of the land in question which was jointly ow