Dismissed¶27

Hariram @ Hariya v. Commissioner Hisar Division Hisar and Others

Punjab & Haryana High Court (LPA-1435-2024(O&M), decided 18.08.2025) – Partition

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Aug 2025LPA/1435/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hariram @ Hariya v. Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar — LPA-1435-2024(O&M), Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, decided 18.08.2025 (oral, Ashwani Kumar Mishra J.; Rohit Kapoor J.) — partition of land; revenue hierarchy (mode of partition approved 09.09.2019; Collector's appellate dismissal 23.04.2021; Commissioner's revision); mutual/family partition compromises dated 11.06.1999 and 02.12.2002; possession as per compromise; concurrent findings not perverse or illegal; fresh plea of road-frontage land rejected as never taken before authorities; appellant dug upto 3 feet soil; appeal dismissed, pending applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

None; pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. ¶27

Hariram @ Hariya Vs Commissioner Hisar Division Hisar and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment of the learned Single Judge in CWP No.4861-2024, rejecting the appellant's challenge to the partition orders, calls for interference in this Letters Patent Appeal. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

The findings of the learned Single Judge that both sides were in possession of their respective shares as per the compromise have not been shown to be perverse or illegal; no merit in the contentions advanced against the impugned judgment.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

A plea that the side of the land abutting the main road has gone to the other side cannot be examined where such a plea was never taken before any of the authorities and nothing on record shows prejudice on that ground.

¶26

Key takeaways

The appellant's possession of his share of land and the fact that he dug upto 3 feet of soil from the land under his possession are reasons sufficient to discard his claim.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (LPA-1435-2024(O&M), decided 18.08.2025) — Partition — Appeal against Single Judge's dismissal of writ petition challenging partition orders. Single Judge had noted concurrent findings of the revenue authorities: partition initiated at the behest of respondent No.4; mode of partition approved 09.09.2019; appeal dismissed by Collector 23.04.2021; Commissioner, on re-appreciation in revision, found mutual-partition compromises of 11.06.1999 and 02.12.2002 with both parties in possession of their respective shares, and that the petitioner had dug upto 3 feet of soil from the land in his possession. Division Bench held these findings neither perverse nor illegal; the plea that the road-abutting side went to the other side, never raised before any authority and unsupported by any showing of prejudice, could not be examined; possession plus digging of soil sufficient to discard the claim. Appeal dismissed; pending applications disposed of.

¶1

¶2

LPA-1435-2024(O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

117 LPA-1435-2024(O&M) Date of Decision: August 18, 2025

¶5

Hariram @ Hariya

¶6

......Appellant (s)

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar and others

¶9

......Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR

¶11

Present: Mr. Adtiya Jain, Advocate and Mr. Rahul Vohra, Advocate for the appellant(s).

¶12

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA J. (ORAL)

¶13

This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 01.03.2024 passed by learned Single Judge, in CWP No.4861-2024, whereby the challenge laid by the appellant to the partition orders in appropriate proceedings, has been rejected.

¶14

Learned Single Judge has taken note of the fact that the parties had already entered into a settlement, pursuant to which both sides were in possession of their respective shares. It is with these observations that the authorities have concurrently held the partition to have been effected between the parties. Observation made by learned Single Judge on this aspect is reproduced hereunder:-

¶15

“ On hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, it is apparent that the partition proceedings were initiated at the behest of respondent No.4

¶16

SONIA ARORA 2025.08.25 14:40 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶17

¶18

LPA-1435-2024(O&M)

¶19

whereby an application for partition of the land was filed. After hearing the objections filed, the mode of partition was approved on 09.09.2019. It has been found on perusal of the revenue record that the family partition of entire land of the Khewat was carried out a long time ago and written version of the same was also presented on the file. Type of the land was found to be same throughout. Thus, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Collector on 23.04.2021. The petitioner assailed the same by way of filing the revision petition before the Commissioner. The parties were heard again and the evidence on record was re-appreciated. It was established that the compromise for mutual partition was made on 11.06.1999 and 02.12.2002. Both the parties were in possession of their respective share as per the compromise arrived. No difference in the nature of the land was found, thus value of the land in possession of both the sides was also not found at variance. Rather, it was found that the petitioner had dug upto 3 feet of soil from the land under his possession and thus the possession of the land could also not be controverted by the petitioner. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances, the Revenue Authorities have finalized the partition proceedings.

¶20

Thus, no material illegality is found to have been committed in effecting the partition proceedings. Resultantly, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned orders passed, hence, the present petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.”

¶21

Though the judgment of the learned Single Judge is assailed on various grounds but we do not find any merit in the contentions so advanced in as much as the findings returned by the learned Single Judge that both sides were in possession over their respective shares as per the compromise, has not

¶22

¶23

SONIA ARORA 2025.08.25 14:40 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶24

¶25

LPA-1435-2024(O&M)

¶26

been shown to be perverse or illegal for any reason. Merely stating that the side of the land which abuts the main road has gone to the other side, cannot be examined by us, when such a plea has consistently never been taken before any of the authorities. Even before this Court, there is nothing on record to show that any prejudice is caused on this ground. The finding returned by learned Single Judge that the appellant is in possession of his share of land and has also dug upto 3 feet of soil from the land under his possession otherwise is a reason sufficient enough to discard the claim of the appellant

¶27