[290] Taranjeet Kaur Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others Coram : Present: PANKAJ JAIN [1] challenged dated 26.08.2021 (Annexure P Haryana, whereby revision filed by the petitioner under Punjab Land Revenue Act, 188 [2] vide order dated 03.05.2013 prepared partition. The petitioner claims that the same was revi Naksha ‘Bay’ partition. Petitioner claims to have filed objections to prepared pursuant to order dated 12.0 AC, Ist Grade, Narwana vide orde was issued on 12.05.2014. Petitioner impugned orders passed by the revenue authorities vide ROR No.138/2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT CHANDIGARH CWP-25120 Date of Decision : Taranjeet Kaur Versus Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Mr. A.P. Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ravi Pratap Singh, DAG, Haryana. Mr. V.D. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4. *** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the revenue authorities affirmed by Order dated 26.08.2021 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, whereby revision filed by the petitioner under Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 stands dismissed. The dispute relates to partition proceedings. A vide order dated 03.05.2013 prepared partition. The petitioner claims that the same was revi Naksha ‘Bay’ was prepared on 12.02.2014 which is against mode of partition. Petitioner claims to have filed objections to prepared pursuant to order dated 12.02.2014. The same were rejected by AC, Ist Grade, Narwana vide order dated 21.03.2014. issued on 12.05.2014. Petitioner impugned orders passed by the revenue authorities vide ROR No.138/2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 25120-2021 (O&M) Date of Decision : 14.07.2026 …Petitioner Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others ….Respondents PANKAJ JAIN Advocate and Ms. Pallavi Bahre, Advocate Mr. Ravi Pratap Singh, DAG, Haryana. for respondent No.4. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has order passed by the revenue authorities affirmed by Order 10) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, whereby revision filed by the petitioner under Section 16 of the stands dismissed. The dispute relates to partition proceedings. A.C., Ist Grade vide order dated 03.05.2013 prepared Naksha ‘Bay’ as per mode of partition. The petitioner claims that the same was revised and a fresh .2014 which is against mode of partition. Petitioner claims to have filed objections to Naksha ‘Bay’ .2014. The same were rejected by r dated 21.03.2014. Sanad Takseem issued on 12.05.2014. Petitioner impugned Sanad Takseem and the orders passed by the revenue authorities vide ROR No.138/2016-17. Advocate By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has order passed by the revenue authorities affirmed by Order 10) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Section 16 of the , Ist Grade mode of fresh .2014 which is against mode of Naksha ‘Bay’ .2014. The same were rejected by Sanad Takseem and the RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.07.21 16:47 I agree to specified portions of this document CWP-25120-2021 (O&M) -2- [3] Counsel for the petitioner assails the order claiming that the possession is inequitable and is against mode of partition. Petitioner is not in a position to dispute that she purchased land from one of the co- sharers, namely Bhoria Singh, vide sale deed dated 29.05.2014 i.e. after Sanad Takseem had already been issued on 12.05.2014. Bhoria Singh never filed any petition challenging Sanad Takseem. [4] Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show as to how the partition can be re-opened at her instance as she purchased land from Bhoria Singh after Sanad Takseem had been prepared and the jointness amongst the co-sharers already stood severed. [5] Keeping in view that the petitioner has purchased the land on 29.05.2014 which is admittedly after the issuance of Sanad Takseem which was issued on 12.05.2014, this Court finds no reason to entertain the present writ petition. The same is ordered to be dismissed. [6] All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed off. (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE 14.07.2026 ‘R. Sharma' Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.07.21 16:47 I agree to specified portions of this document