Dismissed¶41

Nishan Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Aug 2025CWP/10721/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Partition proceedings Punjab; Sanad Taksim; Mode of Partition; Naksha Arra objections; Assistant Collector Grade-I Amritsar; Collector Amritsar-I appeal; Commissioner Jalandhar Division revision not maintainable; Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab ROR No.745 of 2024; Article 226 Constitution of India; writ of Certiorari; revenue record not attached; area discrepancy 87 Kanals 19 Marlas vs 83 Kanals 18 Marlas; Village Bandala-I Amritsar; Narinder Pal Singh; Nishan Singh; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Learned counsel for the petitioners failed to point out what prejudice was caused to the petitioners by the manner in which the partition was carried out. ¶35

Nishan Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether there is any compelling reason for this Court to interfere in the concluded partition proceedings and the impugned orders passed by the revenue authorities, the challenge being brought under Article 226 seeking certiorari. +1 more

¶41

Court's answer

Learned counsel for the petitioners failed to point out what prejudice was caused to the petitioners by the manner in which the partition was carried out.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

It was also not shown whether the petitioners had been allocated land less than their entitlement.

¶35

Key takeaways

The contention that partition covered 83 Kanals 18 Marlas instead of the applied-for 87 Kanals 19 Marlas was rejected because the petitioners attached neither any revenue record nor even a complete copy of Sanad Taksim dated 06.03.2019, so the Court could not appreciate the contention.ratio¶40
No compelling reason found to interfere in the partition proceedings/impugned orders; the writ petition fails and is dismissed.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Harsh Bunger, J., oral) dismisses CWP-10721-2025 (O&M) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by Nishan Singh and others seeking certiorari against partition proceedings initiated by respondent No.6 Narinder Pal Singh over joint land measuring 87 Kanals 19 Marlas at Village Bandala-I, Tehsil Amritsar-I, District Amritsar — namely Mode of Partition dated 16.09.2016 (Annexure P-1), final partition order dated 27.06.2017 (Annexure P-3) by the Assistant Collector Grade-I, Amritsar, Collector Amritsar-I order dated 28.08.2018 (Annexure P-4), Sanad Taksim dated 06.03.2019 (Annexure P-5), Commissioner Jalandhar Division order dated 28.03.2023 (Annexure P-7) and Financial Commissioner, Punjab order dated 27.09.2024 (Annexure P-9) dismissing ROR No.745 of 2024. Counsel could show no prejudice from the manner of partition nor any allotment below entitlement; the plea that partition covered only 83 Kanals 18 Marlas was rejected as unsubstantiated, no revenue record or complete Sanad Taksim having been attached. The Court observed in passing that the revision before the Commissioner was not maintainable. Finding no compelling reason to interfere, the writ petition was dismissed and pending applications closed.

¶1

-1-

¶2

CWP-10721-2025 (O&M)

¶3

119

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

********

¶6

CWP-10721-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.08.2025

¶7

Nishan Singh and others ….Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Punjab and others ….Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER

¶11

Present : Mr. Prateek Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Nirmaljit Singh Diwana, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

¶13

Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate for the respondent-Bank.

¶14

¶15

HARSH BUNGER, J. (Oral)

¶16

This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for setting aside Mode of Partition dated 16.09.2016 (Annexure P-1); final order of partition dated 27.06.2017 (Annexure P-3); Sanad Taksim dated 06.03.2019 (Annexure P-5); order dated 28.08.2018 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Collector, Amritsar-I and also order dated 28.03.2023 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar.

¶17

1.1 A further prayer has been made for setting aside order dated 27.09.2024 (Annexure P-9) passed by learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab.

¶18

Briefly, respondent No.6- Narinder Pal Singh sought partition of

¶19

HIMANI GUPTA 2025.09.30 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CWP-10721-2025 (O&M) -2-

¶21

joint land measuring 87 Kanals 19 Marlas, situated at Village Bandala-I, Tehsil Amritsar-I, District Amritsar. The petitioners appeared and participated in the aforesaid partition proceedings, wherein Mode of Partition dated 16.09.2016 (Annexure P-1) was prepared. Thereafter, Naksha ‘Arra’ was received from the field staff, whereupon petitioners submitted their objections, however the said objections were not considered and the learned Assistant Collector Grade-I, Amritsar, vide order dated 27.06.2017 (Annexure P-3) passed the final order of partition.

¶22

2.1 Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Collector, Amritsar-I, which was dismissed vide order dated 28.08.2018 (Annexure P-4). Thereafter, Sanad Taksim dated 06.03.2019 (Annexure P-5) was issued.

¶23

2.2 It transpires that the petitioners challenged the aforesaid partition proceedings/orders by filing a revision before the learned Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, however the same was dismissed vide order dated 28.03.2023 (Annexure P-7).

¶24

2.3 Still dissatisfied, the petitioners preferred a revision petition (ROR No.745 of 2024) before the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, which has also been dismissed vide impugned order dated 27.09.2024 (Annexure P-9).

¶25

In the aforementioned circumstances, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition before this Court for seeking the relief(s) as noticed hereinabove.

¶26

Heard.

¶27

In the present case, the partition proceedings initiated at the instance of respondent No.6- Narinder Pal Singh came to be concluded with

¶28

HIMANI GUPTA the drawing of Sanad Taksim dated 06.03.2019 (Annexure P-5). 2025.09.30 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

CWP-10721-2025 (O&M) -3-

¶30

Thereafter, the petitioners preferred a revision before the learned Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, although the same was not maintainable. Be that as it may, the revision petition preferred by the petitioners before the learned Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar was dismissed vide order dated 28.03.2023 (Annexure P-7).

¶31

Thereafter, the petitioners filed a revision petition (ROR No.745 of 2024) before the learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab which was also dismissed vide order dated 27.09.2024 (Annexure P-9), by observing as

¶32

under:-

¶33

“4. I have considered the arguments advanced by Counsel for the petitioner and also perused the orders of the lower Courts. It is found that order passed by DRO-cum-Assistant Collector Grade-I, Amritsar passed detailed and speaking order. It has been clearly mentioned by AC-I that proper notices were sent to the petitioner. Munadi was conducted in the village. It has been further clarified by AC-I that the petitioner did not raise any objection on sanctioned mode of partition and any of the Nakshas. At this revisional stage, the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise objections on Nakshas. Further, the revision petition is with regard to partition only not with regard to FardBadar. This view has been taken by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. There is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the lower Courts.”

¶34

Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners has failed

¶35

to point out as to what prejudice has been caused to the petitioners by the manner in which the partition has been carried out. It has also not been shown as to whether the petitioners have been allocated land less than their entitlement.

¶36

At this stage, only one submission has been raised that the application for partition was submitted in respect of area measuring 87 HIMANI GUPTA 2025.09.30 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶37

-4-

¶38

CWP-10721-2025 (O&M)

¶39

Kanals 19 Marlas, whereas the partition has been actually carried out for an area measuring 83 Kanals 18 Marlas.

¶40

I have considered the aforesaid submissions raised on behalf of the petitioners, however it is observed that the petitioners have not attached any revenue record with the present writ petition so as to enable this Court to appreciate the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the petitioners. Even a complete copy of Sanad Taksim dated 06.03.2019 has not been attached. In the absence of the aforesaid two material documents, it is not possible for this Court to appreciate the aforesaid contention, accordingly the same is rejected.

¶41

In view of the above, I find no compelling reason to interfere in the partition proceedings/impugned orders. Resultantly, the instant writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶42

All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.

¶43

06.08.2025 (HARSH BUNGER) Himani JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶44

HIMANI GUPTA 2025.09.30 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Nishan Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nishan Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Didar Singh Vs Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab

Harnam Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Harbans Kaur Vs Financial Commissioner (Appeal) Punjab and Others

Ravinderpal Singh Vs Union of India and Others

Avtar Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Mange Ram Vs State of Haryana and Others