IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Sr. No.: 223 Civil Writ Petition No.1871 of 2016 Date of Decision: July 22, 2026 Ramrikh ..... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Financial Commissioner, Haryana & others ..... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN PRESENT: - Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate, with Mr. Ritesh Sharma, Mr. Suamin Sharma, Lakshya Saini and Mr. Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mr. Pankaj Mulwani, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Anil Ghanghas, Advocate, for respondent No.2. PANKAJ JAIN, J (Oral) The present writ petition is directed against order dated 07.10.2015 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, whereby Sanad Taksim issued in case of partition has been set aside. 2. The parties are joint owners of land. The petitioner filed an application for partition of joint khewat in February 2002. Naksha ‘B’ was accepted on 21.04.2009. Sanad Taksim was issued. One of the co-sharers, Balraj filed an appeal, which was dismissed vide order dated 25.04.2011. The order was assailed before the Commissioner. The appeal filed before the Commissioner was also dismissed vide order dated 26.09.2013. Balraj did not assail the order of the Commissioner. However, another co-sharer, Ishwar challenged the same in revision before the Financial Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner vide order dated 07.10.2015 set aside the order of partition including Sanand Taksim, observing as under:- AVIN KUMAR 2026.07.29 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh CWP No.1871 of 2016 [2] The above mentioned revision petition has been filed the petitioner under Section 16(1) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 for setting aside he order dated 21.04.2009 regarding sanctioning of Naksha “B” passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Dharuhera and order dated 26.05.2009 regarding Sanad Takshim passed by the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Dharuhera vide which Naksha “B” and Naksha Zim was sanctioned. The sole contention raised by Counsel for petitioner was that the area where house of petitioner and house of respondent was constructed has also been partitioned which is against the Law. In reply Counsel for respondent stated that the first mode of partition was prepared on 10.08.2007 to which the petitioner had objected and then amended mode or partition was prepared on 04.122007. However, the Counsel for respondent did not rebut the argument that even the land wherein houses have been constructed have been partitioned. In view of above I remand the case back to the appropriate Lower Revenue Court with the direction that partition be done keeping in view the settled law and principle that any land which is Gair Mumkin cannot be partitioned.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the aforesaid order. He referred to Sanad Taksim to submit that the Financial Commissioner proceeded on wrong premise that the land wherein houses have been constructed has been partitioned. Both the parties have their houses in Killa No.26. The constructed portions of the respective parties have fallen to their respective shares. Thus, there being no reason to upset the partition, the Financial Commissioner erred on facts. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that the revenue authorities have the jurisdiction to partition the ‘Estate’. The constructed portion of land does not fall within the ambit of ‘Estate’. The constructed portion being gair mumkin has to be partitioned by the Civil Court only. AVIN KUMAR 2026.07.29 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh CWP No.1871 of 2016 [3] 5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the plea raised by counsel for the respondent cannot be accepted. A bare perusal of Sanad Taksim would reveal that the land under construction has not been partitioned. It being the case wherein the parties to the partition application have constructed their respective houses, the land beneath the houses has been put to their respective shares maintaining their possession over their respective houses. In view thereof, this Court finds that the Financial Commissioner erred in passing the impugned order, that too after an inordinate delay of more than six years of issuance of Sanad Taksim. 6. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The order of Financial Commissioner, dated 07.10.2015, is ordered to be set aside and Sanad Taksim is maintained. (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE July 22, 2026 avin Whether Speaking/ Reasoned: Yes/ No Whether Reportable: Yes/ No AVIN KUMAR 2026.07.29 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh