IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 22.04.2026 Balwan Singh and another ....Petitioners Vs.

Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak and others ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present: Mr. Mahavir Singh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Upasana Dhawan, AAG, 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 17.02.2026 (Annexure P-20)

passed by learned Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak.

2. Briefly, in March 2024, the private respondents herein filed an application seeking partition of joint land measuring 42 kanal - 0 marla comprised in Khewat No.93, situated at village Kharkhoda, Tehsil Kharkhoda, District Sonepat (as per jamabandi for the year 2018-19). It appears that the present petitioners appeared in the partition proceedings and submitted their reply/objections.

3. In the aforesaid partition proceedings, mode of partition dated 18.12.2024 (Annexure P-6) was prepared, which came to be approved vide order dated 03.01.2025 (Annexure P-7) and Naksha Bey was called from the field staff. It transpires that vide order dated 10.06.2025 (Annexure P-9)

passed by learned Assistant Collector, Naksha Bey was approved.

4. Apparently, the private respondents challenged the partition proceedings/Naksha Bey by filing revision petition before the learned Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, which came to be partially allowed vide order dated 17.02.2026 (Annexure P-20), whereby, the order dated 10.06.2025 (Annexure P-9) passed by learned Assistant Collector, has been set aside and the matter has been remanded to the learned Assistant Collector for preparing an amended Naksha Bey and for concluding the partition proceedings.

5. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated 17.02.2026 (Annexure P-20), the petitioners have filed the present petition before this Court, for seeking relief(s) as noticed hereinabove.

6. Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily raised only two arguments; firstly, that the appeal filed by the private respondents before the learned Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak was time barred; and secondly, that the learned Commissioner has no jurisdiction in the matter.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the paperbook with his able assistance.

8. Before dealing with submission raised on behalf of petitioner, it is apposite to note that the partition proceedings were initiated by the private respondents, wherein Naksha Bey was approved vide order dated 10.06.2025 (Annexure P-9), the relevant extract of the same reads as under:-

“Misal/File was produced, counsels for the parties are present. Discussions were done, file was viewed the naqsha B prepared by the field staff was seen, found that it is prepared on the basis of cost and variety of land. Naqsha B prepared by the field staff is approved. The exchange the possession land as per this Naksha Bey will be implemented after expiry the period of Revision/Appeal. The file in connection with naqsha C will be produced on 22.07.2025.

Date 10.06.2025 Sd/-

Ac Kharkhoda”

8.1 A perusal of the above-extracted order dated 10.06.2025 (Annexure P-9) would show that the matter was adjourned to 22.07.2025 for producing Naksha Jeem. Evidently, on 17.07.2025, the private respondents preferred a revision before the learned Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, challenging the partition proceedings/Naksha Bey, etc. wherein the following objection was raised:-

“That court of Tehsildar Kharkhoda has passed this Naqsha B illegally. That the present case was to be heard on 10.01.2025 in connection with Naqsha B. The applicant had submitted his objections in the Naqsha. After this on 08.04.2025 objections of the applicant in connections with the Naqsha B were approved. On the same day orders were passed to prepare amended Naqsha B. After this amended Naqsha B was produced. On the