LPA-197-2024 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (110) LPA-197-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision : September 25, 2025 Kudiya Ram .. Appellant Versus Divisional Commissioner Gurugram and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI Present: Mr. Ashish Yadav, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Shekhar Verma, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 5. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL) 1. Present appeal has been filed against the order dated 08.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP-26825-2023 by which, the challenge to the partition proceedings at the hands of the appellant, has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though, it is a matter of fact that no objection was raised during the process of the partition at the hands of the appellant but that was the duty of the Advocate who was engaged by the appellant at that time and as the Advocate did not appear or raise the objection, prejudice cannot be caused to the appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the said fact has not been duly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the claim of the appellant. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record with his able assistance. HARSHA RANI 2025.09.26 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-197-2024 (O&M) 2 5. It is a matter of fact that a due procedure has been prescribed before partitioning the land between the co-sharers. The process envisage the proposal and records the objections against the proposal and thereafter, the said proposal is finalized in the shape of partition between the co- sharers. 6. In the present case, it is a conceded position that during the process was undertaken, no objection was raised with regard to the proposal qua the partition of the land between the co-sharers at any given point of time at the hands of the appellant. It is only after the partition proceedings came to an end, the appellant started challenging the partition and all the authorities have come to the conclusion that the partition has been ordered in a manner required after following the due process and the same cannot be re-opened on the asking of the appellant on the ground that he could not object to the partition proposal at an earlier stage. 7. Once, the appellant had an opportunity to raise the objection qua the partition, which is concededly not raised, learned Single Judge was correct in rejecting the claim of the appellant to set aside the partition as once the partition proceedings have attained finality and rights crystallized in favour of the parties, the same cannot be re-opened. 8. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the counsel for the appellant did not appear, on being asked as to whether any proceedings have been initiated against the counsel, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not aware of the same. HARSHA RANI 2025.09.26 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-197-2024 (O&M) 3 9. Once, nothing has been produced before this Court to suggest that any proceedings were initiated against the counsel, it cannot be said that counsel was a mis in performing his duties. 10. No other argument has been raised. 11. No ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 13. Civil miscellaneous application pending if any, also stands disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE September 25, 2025 (RAMESH KUMARI) harsha JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No HARSHA RANI 2025.09.26 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document