Sushma Kumari and Others Vs Commissioner Gurugram and Others

Prayer in this civil 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 order dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure P-3), passed by learned Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, Palhawas (in short 'Assistant Collector'); whereby Naksha 'Bey' was approved in the partition proceedings.

¶16

1.1 A further prayer has been made for setting aside order dated 14.05.2025 (Annexure P-7); whereby an application submitted by petitioners for grant of opportunity to file objections to Naksha 'Bey', was dismissed and Sanad Takseem (instrument of partition) was approved/sanctioned.

¶17

1.2 Another prayer has been made for setting aside order dated 17.12.2025 (Annexure P-10), passed by learned Commissioner,

¶18

SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2026.04.22 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

-22026:PHHC:058509

¶20

CWP-11464-2026 (O/M)

¶21

Gurugram Division, Gurugram (in short 'Divisional Commissioner'); whereby revision petition preferred by petitioners challenging partition orders, has been dismissed.

¶22

Briefly, respondents No. 3 to 6 herein sought partition of joint land measuring 11 kanal – 3 marla, comprised in khewat No. 123, situated at village Parkhotampur, Sub Tehsil Palhawas, District Rewari.

¶23

2.1 It appears that respondents No. 3 to 6 herein had sought partition of joint land, comprised in another khewat No. 124 of same village; wherein petitioners were also co-sharers.

¶24

2.2 It transpires that in the partition proceedings in relation to khewat No. 123, Naksha 'Bey' was received on the court file on 29.01.2025 and the matter was adjourned to 19.02.2025 for filing objections to Naksha 'Bey' Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 05.03.2025 and then to 10.03.2025 and thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 19.03.2025.

¶25

2.3 It is the conceded case of petitioners that the petitioners did not file any objection to Naksha 'Bey'. The said fact is borne out from the averments made by the petitioners in paras 2 (c) and (d) of instant writ petition, which read as under :-

¶26

“2 (c) That the earlier Counsel who was appearing for the petitioners did not disclose about the submitting of Naksha 'B' to the Petitioners. Therefore, on 19-3-2025, the Petitioners changed their counsel, who filed his Vakalatnama in the matter and requested for granting an opportunity to submit objections to the Naksha 'B'.

¶27

(d) The the Counsel of the Petitioners was told by the Reader of the Respondent No. 2 that case has been

¶28

SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2026.04.22 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

CWP-11464-2026 (O/M)

¶30

-32026:PHHC:058509

¶31

adjourned to 7-5-2025 for filing of objections to the Naksha B, however, later on, the counsel for the Petitioners came to know that the Respondent No. 2 had closed the opportunity to file the objections to Naksha 'B' on 19-3-2025 and approved the Naksha B on 19-3-2025 'as it is'. A copy of order dated 19-3-2025 and a copy of Naksha 'B' approved as it is by the Respondent No. 2 are annexed, herewith, as Annexure P-3 and Annexure P-4, respectively.”

¶32

2.4 From a perusal of above extracted averments of the petitioners, it is borne out that an opportunity to submit objections to Naksha 'Bey' was closed by Assistant Collector concerned, vide order dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure P-3). Accordingly, on 07.05.2025, the petitioners submitted an application for seeking an opportunity to file objections to Naksha 'Bey', which was dismissed, vide order dated 14.05.2025 (Annexure P-5) and vide same order, Naksha 'Zeem' was approved and ultimately, partition proceedings concluded with the drawing of sanad takseem (instrument of partition) dated 14.05.2025 (Annexure P-7).

¶33

2.5 Feeling dis-satisfied, petitioners preferred a revision petition before learned Divisional Commissioner, which has been dismissed, vide order dated 17.12.2025 (Annexure P-10).

¶34

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

¶35

While referring to site plan (Annexure P-4), the only argument raised by learned counsel for petitioners is that petitioners have

¶36

SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2026.04.22 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶37

-42026:PHHC:058509

¶38

CWP-11464-2026 (O/M)

¶39

been allotted land in two pockets and 3 karam passage has been wrongly carved out from the land under partition (as depicted in pink colour).

¶40

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

¶41

5.1 Concededly the petitioners did not raise any objection to Naksha 'Bey', which indicated the position as reflected in the site plan (Annexure P-4) i.e. proposed allocation of shares to respective co-sharers.

¶42

5.2 Once the petitioners have failed to raise any objection to proposed Naksha 'Bey' and Naksha 'Bey' is finalized, and on that basis, Naksha 'Zeem' was approved and finally, partition proceedings concluded with the drawing of sanad takseem (instrument of partition), now petitioners cannot be permitted to turn around and lay challenge to Naksha 'Bey'.

¶43

5.3 Secondly, it is not the petitioners alone who have been allotted land in two pockets, rather other co-sharers have also been allocated land in two pockets, which are divided by the passage (as shown in pink colour). The requirement to partition the area in the manner as indicated in the site plan (Annexure P-4) has arisen on account of the fact that the land comprised in khewat No. 123, which is subject matter of partition, has a frontage on the passage (falling on the eastern side), only to the extent of 15 karams, out of which 6 karams frontage has been provided to the petitioners and another 6 karams frontage has been provided to private respondents. Rather, 3 karams wide passage has been provided to other pocket of the petitioners in killa No. 18/1/1, so as to provide connectivity to the main passage.

¶44

SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2026.04.22 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶45

-52026:PHHC:058509

¶46

CWP-11464-2026 (O/M)

¶47

5.4 It is well established that partition can never be carried out with mathematical precision and some adjustments are always required to be made considering various factors like number of co-sharers in the joint land, shape of the land parcel under partition, location of land (whether abutting the road/passage or near to village abadi or town etc.), nature/value of land, source of irrigation, existing possession of the parties, provisioning of passage(s)/water-course(s), construction of hutments/houses etc. There may be other factors as well which may call for carving out of blocks of respective co-sharers, in a particular manner.

¶48

5.5 In view of the above, I find no merit in the contention of the petitioners and the same is rejected.

¶49