IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 28.04.2026 Baljit Singh and others ....Petitioners Vs.

Commissioner, Rohtak Division and others ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present: Mr. N.P.S. Mann, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, DAG, Haryana.

*****

HARSH BUNGER J. (Oral)

1 Petition herein is, inter alia, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for setting aside the order dated 15.05.2023 (Annexure P-10) passed by learned Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, Khanpur Kalan whereby Naksha Kha/Bey was approved.

1.1 A further prayer has been made for setting aside the order dated 16.07.2024 (Annexure P-14) passed by learned Sub-Divisional Officer-cum- Collector, Gohana, whereby an appeal field by petitioners No.1 and 2 against the order dated 15.05.2023 (Annexure P-10) was rejected.

1.2 Another prayer has been made for setting aside the order dated 30.05.2025 (Annexure P-17) passed by learned Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak in revision petition No.187 of 2024 filed by petitioner No.1 and 2 herein; and order dated 30.05.2025 (Annexure P-18) passed in revision petition No.188 of 2024 filed by petitioner No.3 (Suman).

2. Briefly, on 03.10.2022, respondents No.4 to 7 herein filed an application seeking partition of joint land measuring 99 kanal - 19 marla, comprised in khewat No.38/38 (as per jamabandi for the year 2018-19), situated at village Sirsadh, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat. In the partition application, present petitioners No.1 and 2 were impleaded as respondents No.4 and 5, whereas petitioner No.3 was impleaded as respondent No.1. Similarly, proforma respondent No.8 – Hardeep, who is the real brother of petitioner No.3 – Suman was also impleaded as respondent No.2 in the partition application.

3. In the aforesaid partition proceedings, notices were issued to the respective parties. From a perusal of para No.7 of the writ petition, it appears that the proforma respondent No.8 (Hardeep), duly accepted the notices and participated in partition proceedings.

4. On the other hand, petitioners No.1 and 2 appeared in the partition proceedings on 30.01.2023, however, they did not appear on the subsequent date i.e. 10.02.2023 and accordingly they were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 10.02.2023 (Annexure P-21), the relevant extract thereof reads as under:-

“The case file was produced. Learned counsel for the plaintiff was present on 30.01.2023. Defendant No. 3 is present in Court. On the previous date of hearing, defendant Nos. 2, 4 and 5 were present in Court; however, today they did not appear before the Court. Repeated calls were made, and as the Court time was about to be over, defendant Nos. 2, 4 and 5 still failed to appear. Accordingly, proceedings against defendant Nos. 2, 4 and 5 are ordered to be conducted ex parte. The summons issued for appearance of defendant No. 1 has been received back by the Court with the report that intimation was duly served upon defendant No. 1; however, despite such intimation, defendant No. 1 did not appear before the Court. Now, summons for defendant No. 1 be issued through munadi (proclamation) and the case file be put up on dated

01.03.2023.”

5. Apparently, petitioner No.3 (Suman) was stated to be served, however since no one appeared on her behalf in the partition proceedings, accordingly, the learned Assistant Collector directed that she be served through proclamation (mushtari munadi) in the village.

5.1 The mushtari munadi is stated to have been carried out in the village vide rapat No.207 dated 28.02.2023 and despite proclamation nobody appeared on behalf of petitioner No.3 (Suman), accordingly she was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 01.03.2023.

6. It appears that after the mode of partition was approved, Naksha Bey was approved vide order dated 15.05.2023 (Annexure P-10).

7. It transpires that the petitioners No.1 and 2 challenged the order dated 15.05.2023 (Annexure P-10) by filing an appeal before the