2025:HHC:9017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.852 of 2018 Decided on: 03.04.2025 Vipan Kumar … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2-State. Mr. Prem P. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondents No.3 to 6. None for respondent No.7 and 10. Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.8. Respondent No.9 proceeded ex parte. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the impugned order dated 23.03 2004 passed by the Assistant Collector Nadaun Annexure P-5, order dated 31.05.2006 passed by the Collector, Sub Division Nadaun Annexure P-6, order dated 10.05.2016 passed by the (19.10) Divisional Commissioner Mandi Annexure P-1 and order dated 05.01.2018 passed the Ld Financial 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:9017 Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh, Shimla contained in Annexure P-2 may kindly be quashed and set aside by issuing a writ of certiorari. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to sanction Khasra No 506/1 in favour of the present petitioner.” 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the orders under challenge. Perusal of the orders demonstrates that in the partition proceedings, after the preparation of the mode of partition, the instrument of partition was drawn and thereafter, final partition was also prepared. The petitioner herein rather than assailing the final partition assailed only the instrument of partition. The Authorities have held that after final partition, in the absence of there being any challenge thereto, instrument of partition cannot be assailed. Learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to persuade this Court to the contrary. 3. Therefore, as there is no infirmity in the finding, returned by learned Court below that after final partition and in the absence of any challenge thereto, the instrument of partition cannot be assailed, this petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits 3 2025:HHC:9017 that one of the parties, namely, Makhni Devi, died during the pendency of the case before learned Divisional Commissioner. Mr. Prem P. Chauhan, learned counsel submits that her legal representatives are now on record before this Court and they are not aggrieved by the orders under challenge. 5. Be that as it may, as already observed hereinabove, as this Court does not finds any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 03, 2025 (Rishi)