IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-3300-2025 Date of Decision: 13.11.2025 Mahender Singh ....Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI ----

Present: Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate for the appellant.

****

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

CM-8166-LPA-2025 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 13 days in filing the appeal.

Keeping in view the facts mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 13 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

LPA-3300-2025 (O&M)

1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 25.09.2025 passed in CWP-28771-2025 by the learned Single Judge, by which, the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner seeking relief for partition has been dismissed.

Rect. No.11//8/1 and 8/2, which has been bifurcated between the co-sharers, has not been done in a manner required and, therefore, the same should be rectified.

3. The land which has been partitioned in the said rectangle, is as under:-

4. A bare perusal of the above would show that the land in pocket ‘A’ belongs to the appellant and the land in pocket ‘B’ belongs to the respondent. The land in pocket ‘A’ is adjoining a passage on both the sides whereas, the land belonging to the respondent in point ‘B’ is only having passage from one side. Keeping in view the ownership of the appellant, the land has been bifurcated in a manner that the passage is given to the other side as well.

land in Rect. No.11//8/1 and 8/2, should be divided in half to a straight line. In case that is done, the other side will loose the land on the path whereas, the land on the path qua the appellant will increase immensely though, the said appellant’s land is already having path on both the sides. The said partition which has been done by the authorities is with due application of mind so that none suffers any prejudice.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show any prejudice caused to him by the partition done.

7. No ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

8. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.

9. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)

JUDGE (VIKAS SURI)

November 13, 2025 JUDGE

Varinder

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes

Whether reportable : No