IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 17.04.2026 Jal Singh and others ....Petitioners Vs.

Commissioner, Gurugram Division, Gurugram and others.

....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the petitioners.

*****

HARSH BUNGER J. (Oral)

1 Petition herein is, inter alia, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for setting aside the order dated 24.04.2023 (Annexure P-4) and order dated 03.07.2023 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, Bawal and order dated 19.09.2025 (Annexure P-7)

passed by learned Commissioner, Gurugram Division, Gurugram.

2. Briefly, respondent No.3 (Har Chand) sought partition of the joint land measuring 69 kanal - 18 marla situated at village Alawalpur, Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari (as per jamabandi for the year 2017-18).

3. Apparently the petitioners appeared in the aforesaid partition proceedings and submitted their reply. Subsequently, mode of partition came to be approved vide order dated 28.09.2022 (Annexure P-3). The relevant clauses of the mode of partition read as under:-

“1. That in partition total 4 khewat should be made. First khewat will be of plaintiff and second khewat will be of respondent No.1, third khewat will be of respondent no.2 and 6 fourth khewat will be of mustarka.

2. That possession and cultivation should be taken into consideration.

3. That rasta Nal Chah will be considered.

4. If any party has installed tubewell and construct house at their own expenses, that should be given to them and if it is mustarka, then it be kept as mustarka.

5. That valuable land adjacent to village abadi and road, each party be given front and area as per their share.

6. That shortage or excess of two marla will not be considered.

7. That while doing partition rasta be given to all areas.”

3.1. Apparently, the above extracted mode of partition attained finality as the petitioners did not raise any objection to the aforesaid mode of partition nor they challenged the same by filing any appeal.

4. It appears that on the basis of aforesaid sanctioned mode of partition, Naksha Bey was sought from the field staff. Upon receipt of the Naksha Bey from the field staff, objections of the parties upon Naksha Bey were sought.

5. Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners has very fairly conceded that he did not raise any objection to the proposed Naksha Bey. The Naksha Bey came to be approved by the learned Assistant Collector vide order dated 24.04.2023 (Annexure P-4), which was followed by approval of Naksha Jeem vide order dated 03.07.2023 (Annexure P-5).

Thereafter, Sanad Takseem is stated to have been issued, although the copy thereof is not appended with the writ petition.

6. Feeling dissatisfied with the partition proceedings/orders, the petitioners preferred a revision before the learned Commissioner, Gurugram Division, Gurugram, however the same has been dismissed vide order dated

19.09.2025 (Annexure P-5).

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

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has primarily raised two submissions. Firstly, that in the final partition, even the area which was recorded as Gair Mumkin has been subjected to the partition, although the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to partition Gair Mumkin area; Secondly that petitioner’s possession over specific killa numbers i.e. rectangle No.5, khasra No. 17/2 and 24 has been disturbed in the final partition.

9. I have considered the aforesaid submissions raised on behalf of the petitioners and perused the paperbook.

10 Concededly, the mode of partition came to be approved vide order dated 28.09.2022 (Annexure P-3), wherein Clause No.4 reads as under:-

“4. If any party has installed tubewell and construct house at their own expenses, that should be given to them and if it is mustarka, then it be kept as mustarka.”

10.1 A perusal of the aforesaid