152 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 17.04.2026 Sushma Kumari and another ...... Petitioners Versus Commissioner, Gurugram Range, Gurugram, Haryana ...... Respondents and others CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present :- Mr. Sahil Garg, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Abhimanyu Antil, DAG Haryana.

-.- -.-

HARSH BUNGER, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in this civil writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India, inter alia, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside order dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure P-3), passed by learned Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, Palhawas (in short 'Assistant Collector'); whereby Naksha 'Bey' was approved in the partition proceedings.

1.1 A further prayer has been made for setting aside order dated 14.05.2025 (Annexure P-7); whereby an application submitted by petitioners for grant of opportunity to file objections to Naksha 'Bey', was dismissed and Sanad Takseem (instrument of partition) was approved/sanctioned.

1.2 Another prayer has been made for setting aside order dated 17.12.2025 (Annexure P-10), passed by learned Commissioner, Gurugram Division, Gurugram (in short 'Divisional Commissioner'); whereby revision petition preferred by petitioners challenging partition orders, has been dismissed.

2. Briefly, respondents No. 3 to 6 herein sought partition of joint land measuring 11 kanal – 3 marla, comprised in khewat No. 123, situated at village Parkhotampur, Sub Tehsil Palhawas, District Rewari.

2.1 It appears that respondents No. 3 to 6 herein had sought partition of joint land, comprised in another khewat No. 124 of same village; wherein petitioners were also co-sharers.

2.2 It transpires that in the partition proceedings in relation to khewat No. 123, Naksha 'Bey' was received on the court file on 29.01.2025 and the matter was adjourned to 19.02.2025 for filing objections to Naksha 'Bey' Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 05.03.2025 and then to 10.03.2025 and thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 19.03.2025.

2.3 It is the conceded case of petitioners that the petitioners did not file any objection to Naksha 'Bey'. The said fact is borne out from the averments made by the petitioners in paras 2 (c) and (d) of instant writ petition, which read as under :-

“2 (c) That the earlier Counsel who was appearing for the petitioners did not disclose about the submitting of Naksha 'B' to the Petitioners. Therefore, on 19-3-2025, the Petitioners changed their counsel, who filed his Vakalatnama in the matter and requested for granting an opportunity to submit objections to the Naksha 'B'.

(d) The the Counsel of the Petitioners was told by the Reader of the Respondent No. 2 that case has been adjourned to 7-5-2025 for filing of objections to the Naksha B, however, later on, the counsel for the Petitioners came to know that the Respondent No. 2 had closed the opportunity to file the objections to Naksha 'B' on 19-3-2025 and approved the Naksha B on 19-3-2025 'as it is'. A copy of order dated 19-3-2025 and a copy of Naksha 'B' approved as it is by the Respondent No. 2 are annexed, herewith, as Annexure P-3 and Annexure P-4, respectively.”

2.4 From a perusal of above extracted averments of the petitioners, it is borne out that an opportunity to submit objections to Naksha 'Bey' was closed by Assistant Collector concerned, vide order dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure P-3). Accordingly, on 07.05.2025, the petitioners submitted an application for seeking an opportunity to file objections to Naksha 'Bey', which was dismissed, vide order dated 14.05.2025 (Annexure P-5) and vide same order, Naksha 'Zeem' was approved and ultimately, partition proceedings concluded with the drawing of sanad takseem (instrument of partition) dated 14.05.2025 (Annexure P-7).

2.5 Feeling dis-satisfied, petitioners preferred a revision petition before learned Divisional Commissioner, which has been dismissed, vide order dated 17.12.2025 (Annexure P-10).

3. In the aforeme