Dismissed¶50

Dilbag Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 May 2025CWP/7538/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Partition - sanad takseem - mode of partition - Naksha Bey - revision before Divisional Commissioner - dismissal for non-prosecution - restoration application - certiorari - Articles 226/227 - Section 151 CPC - khewat No. 1628, 86 kanal 8 marla, village Balla, District Karnal - Collector Assandh - Commissioner Karnal Division - Dilbag Singh v. State of Haryana - CWP-7538-2025 - Punjab and Haryana High Court, 07.05.2025 - writ petition dismissed, objections to partition unsubstantiated, no prejudice shown.

What did the court decide?

Application CM-5964-CWP-2025 under Section 151 CPC for placing on record the application for partition of land as Annexure P-11 is allowed; the document is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. ¶17

Dilbag Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition should result in setting aside the order dated 19.12.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Divisional Commissioner dismissing the petitioner's revision petition against the sanad takseem dated 08.12.2022, via a writ of certiorari. +1 more

¶20

Ratio / Principle

¶17

Key takeaways

Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to substantiate his submissions (house construction on killa No. 224//24, allotment of kila No. 23 to Balwinder, lifting of soil); in their absence, the pleas raised by the petitioner are liable to be rejected.ratio¶49
No material was referred to show that any claim was raised by the petitioner to the aforesaid killa No. 224//23 either in the reply to the partition application or at the time of recording statements of the parties on the mode of partition; no copy of objections to Naksha 'Bey' was attached with the petition or produced during hearing; and the submission regarding lifting of soil was not substantiated by any evidence.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Harsh Bunger, J., oral), decision dated 07.05.2025 - CWP-7538-2025 (O/M), Dilbag Singh v. State of Haryana and others. Writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution seeking certiorari against the order dated 19.12.2024 (Annexure P-1) of the Commissioner, Karnal Division, Karnal (Divisional Commissioner) dismissing the petitioner's revision petition against the sanad takseem dated 08.12.2022 (Annexure P-3) drawn in partition of joint land, khewat No. 1628, measuring 86 kanal - 8 marla, village Balla, District Karnal, applied for by respondents No. 6 to 9. Prior course: mode of partition approved 20.09.2021 (Annexure P-9); appeal to Collector, Assandh dismissed 16.12.2021 (Annexure P-7); revision dismissed for non-prosecution 03.08.2022 (Annexure P-6); CWP-27982-2022 disposed 06.12.2022 directing the Divisional Commissioner to take up the pending restoration application on 07.12.2022. Held: the petitioner's objections - house constructed on killa No. 224//24, allotment of kila No. 23 to respondent No. 11 (Balwinder), and lifting of 6-7 feet soil by Ram Swaroop and Hari Singh - were unsubstantiated; no claim to the relevant killa was raised in the reply to the partition application or at the mode-of-partition statements; no copy of objections to Naksha 'Bey' was attached or produced; and it was neither the petitioner's case that he was not allotted land as per his entitlement nor shown that he suffered prejudice from the final partition. Writ petition dismissed; pending applications closed. (CM-5964-CWP-2025 under Section 151 CPC allowed, Annexure P-11 taken on record.)

¶1

CWP-7538-2025 (O/M)

¶2

-12025:PHHC:061299

¶3

135 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP-7538-2025 (O/M) Date of decision : 07.05.2025

Dilbag Singh

...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶9

...... Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER

¶11

Present :- Ms. Monita Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Ms. Upasana Dhawan, AAG Haryana.

¶13

-.-.-

¶14

HARSH BUNGER, J. (ORAL)

¶15

CM-5964-CWP-2025

¶16

This is an application filed under Section 151 CPC for placing on record document i.e. application for partition of land as Annexure P-11.

¶17

For the reasons mentioned in application, same is allowed and document i.e. application for partition of land (Annexure P-11) is taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

¶18

Application is accordingly disposed of.

¶19

CWP-7538-2025

¶20

Prayer in this 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 the order dated 19.12.2024 (Annexure P-1),

¶21

SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2025.07.15 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CWP-7538-2025 (O/M)

¶23

-22025:PHHC:061299

¶24

passed by Commissioner, Karnal Division, Karnal (in short 'Divisional Commissioner').

¶25

Briefly, respondents No. 6 to 9 filed an application seeking partition of joint land comprised in khewat No. 1628, measuring 86 kanal – 8 marla (as per jamabandi for 2019-20), situate at village Balla, District Karnal.

¶26

2.1 In the aforesaid partition proceedings, mode of partition came to be approved, vide order dated 20.09.2021 (Annexure P-9). The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order dated 20.09.2021 (Annexure P-9) by filing an appeal before learned Collector, Assandh, which was dismissed, vide order dated 16.12.2021 (Annexure P-7).

¶27

2.2 It appears that the petitioner challenged the orders dated 16.12.2021 and 20.09.2021 by filing a revision petition before learned Divisional Commissioner, which was dismissed for nonprosecution, vide order dated 03.08.2022 (Annexure P-6). Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application seeking restoration of aforesaid revision petition and during the pendency of same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition i.e. CWP-27982-2022, which came to be disposed of, vide order dated 06.12.2022 (Annexure P-10). The relevant extract of order dated 06.12.2022 (Annexure P-10) reads as under :-

¶28

“ It is submitted that appeal against acceptance of Naksha Bey was dismissed and, thus, a revision petition has been filed. The same was dismissed for want of prosecution. An application for restoration has been filed but the same has not been considered till date. Meanwhile, the Assistant Collector has called for the Naksha Jeem.

¶29

Notion of motion to respondent Nos. 1 to 7 only.

¶30

SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2025.07.15 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶31

CWP-7538-2025 (O/M)

¶32

-32025:PHHC:061299

¶33

Ms. Jasleen Kaur Sidhu, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and waives service. Mr. Gagan Sehgal, Advocate, puts in appearance and accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 to 7 and submits that the restoration application is pending for tomorrow i.e. 07.12.2022.

¶34

Meanwhile, since there is no stay, the Assistant Collector was justified in proceeding further.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a direction may be issued to the revisional authority to take up the pending restoration application on 07.12.2022.

¶36

In view of the above submission, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Divisional Commissioner, Karnal to take up the pending restoration application tomorrow i.e. on 07.12.2022.

¶37

A copy of this order be given dasti under signatures of the Bench Secretary of this Court.”

¶38

2.3 It transpires that the partition proceedings came to be concluded with the drawing of sanad takseem on 08.12.2022 (Annexure P-3), which was challenged by the petitioner by filing a revision petition before learned Divisional Commissioner, however, the same was dismissed, vide impugned order dated 19.12.2024

¶39

(Annexure P-1).

¶40

In the aforementioned circumstances, the petitioner has filed the instant civil writ petition before this Court, for the relief(s), as noticed hereinabove.

¶41

Heard.

¶42

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner has constructed his house in killa No. 224//24 and that he had sown his crops

¶43

in kila No. 23, which has been given to respondent No. 11 (Balwinder).

¶44

SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2025.07.15 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶45

CWP-7538-2025 (O/M)

¶46

-42025:PHHC:061299

¶47

Another objection raised by the petitioner that one Ram Swaroop and Hari Singh had got lifted 6-7 feet soil from the land in question.

¶48

5.1 So far as submission as regards construction of a house by the petitioner on killa No. 224//24 is concerned, it has not been shown as to whether said area has been allotted to other co-sharer, so as to make out a ground that the partition is contrary to the mode of partition. However, as far as allotment of killa No. 23 to one Balwinder is concerned, learned counsel for petitioner has failed to refer to any material to indicate that any claim was raised by the petitioner to the aforesaid killa No. 224//23 either in the reply to the partition application or at the time of recording statements of the parties on the mode of partition. Even copy of objections to Naksha 'Bey' (if any) has not been attached with the petition nor produced during the course of hearing of this petition. Further, the submission as regards lifting of soil is also not substantiated by any evidence as such.

¶49

Considering the totality of circumstances, I am of the considered view that learned counsel for petitioner has failed to substantiate his submissions, as noticed above and in the absence of same, the pleas raised by petitioner are liable to be rejected. Even otherwise, it is not the case of the petitioner that he has not been allotted land as per his entitlement. Further, it has not been shown by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner has suffered any prejudice with the manner in which final partition has been carried out.

¶50