CWP-39537-2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 130 CWP-39537-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.04.2026 Jal Singh and others ....Petitioners Vs. Commissioner, Gurugram Division, Gurugram and others. ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the petitioners. ***** HARSH BUNGER J. (Oral) 1 Petition herein is, inter alia, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for setting aside the order dated 24.04.2023 (Annexure P-4) and order dated 03.07.2023 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Bawal and order dated 19.09.2025 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned Commissioner, Gurugram Division, Gurugram. 2. Briefly, respondent No.3 (Har Chand) sought partition of the joint land measuring 69 kanal - 18 marla situated at village Alawalpur, Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari (as per jamabandi for the year 2017-18). 3. Apparently the petitioners appeared in the aforesaid partition proceedings and submitted their reply. Subsequently, mode of partition came to be approved vide order dated 28.09.2022 (Annexure P-3). The relevant clauses of the mode of partition read as under:- ANKIT 2026.04.22 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP-39537-2025 (O&M) -2- “1. That in partition total 4 khewat should be made. First khewat will be of plaintiff and second khewat will be of respondent No.1, third khewat will be of respondent no.2 and 6 fourth khewat will be of mustarka. 2. That possession and cultivation should be taken into consideration. 3. That rasta Nal Chah will be considered. 4. If any party has installed tubewell and construct house at their own expenses, that should be given to them and if it is mustarka, then it be kept as mustarka. 5. That valuable land adjacent to village abadi and road, each party be given front and area as per their share. 6. That shortage or excess of two marla will not be considered. 7. That while doing partition rasta be given to all areas.” 3.1. Apparently, the above extracted mode of partition attained finality as the petitioners did not raise any objection to the aforesaid mode of partition nor they challenged the same by filing any appeal. 4. It appears that on the basis of aforesaid sanctioned mode of partition, Naksha Bey was sought from the field staff. Upon receipt of the Naksha Bey from the field staff, objections of the parties upon Naksha Bey were sought. 5. Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners has very fairly conceded that he did not raise any objection to the proposed Naksha Bey. The Naksha Bey came to be approved by the learned Assistant Collector vide order dated 24.04.2023 (Annexure P-4), which was followed by approval of Naksha Jeem vide order dated 03.07.2023 (Annexure P-5). ANKIT 2026.04.22 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP-39537-2025 (O&M) -3- Thereafter, Sanad Takseem is stated to have been issued, although the copy thereof is not appended with the writ petition. 6. Feeling dissatisfied with the partition proceedings/orders, the petitioners preferred a revision before the learned Commissioner, Gurugram Division, Gurugram, however the same has been dismissed vide order dated 19.09.2025 (Annexure P-5). 7. In the aforementioned circumstances, present petition has been filed before this Court, for seeking relief(s), as noted hereinabove. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has primarily raised two submissions. Firstly, that in the final partition, even the area which was recorded as Gair Mumkin has been subjected to the partition, although the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to partition Gair Mumkin area; Secondly that petitioner’s possession over specific killa numbers i.e. rectangle No.5, khasra No. 17/2 and 24 has been disturbed in the final partition. 9. I have considered the aforesaid submissions raised on behalf of the petitioners and perused the paperbook. 10 Concededly, the mode of partition came to be approved vide order dated 28.09.2022 (Annexure P-3), wherein Clause No.4 reads as under:- “4. If any party has installed tubewell and construct house at their own expenses, that should be given to them and if it is mustarka, then it be kept as mustarka.” ANKIT 2026.04.22 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP-39537-2025 (O&M) -4- 10.1 A perusal of the aforesaid clause No. 4 would clearly indicate that even Gair Mumkin area was agreed to be partitioned amongst the co-sharers. 11. Apparently, the petitioners have never raised any objection to the aforesaid clause 4 in the mode of partition nor any appeal has been filed against the mode of partition. Further, even when Naksha Bey was proposed, an opportunity was afforded to the petitioners to file objections to the manner in which the partition was proposed, however, the petitioners did not raise any objection at that stage; and on the basis of sanctioned Naksha Bey, Naksha Jeem came to be prepared and ultimately, partition proceedings concluded with the drawing of Sanad Takseem. 12. Therefore, once there was a specific clause in the mode of partition permitting partition of Gair Mumkim area, and no objection was made to the said mode of partition; now at this stage when partition stands concluded, the petitioner cannot be permitted to turn around and reopen the partition proceedings. 13. As regards the contention of the petitioners that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to partition the area recorded as Gair Mumkin, suffice it to say that although Revenue Authorities have no jurisdiction to partition Gair Mumkin area, however, in case there is a specific clause in the mode of partition regarding allocation of tubewell or constructed house to that very party who installed or constructed the same, and no objection is raised to such clause in mode of partition, in that eventuality no fault can be found in the partition proceedings if in final ANKIT 2026.04.22 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP-39537-2025 (O&M) -5- partition such tubewell or house is allocated to the party to whom it belongs. Such allocation of gair mumkin area has to be taken on the basis of consensus. A similar plea was rejected by a Co-ordinate bench of this Court in case titled as “Gajjan Singh and others Vs. Financial Commissioner Revenue, Punjab and others”, 2019(4) RCR (Civil) 498, wherein it was held as under:- “So far as the assertion of the counsel for the petitioners that the land in question is a gair mumkin land and therefore, Revenue Court does not have the jurisdiction, cannot be accepted as it is a mixed land, may be some portion thereof is a constructed area but that does not bar the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 ” 14. As regards the second contention; learned counsel for the petitioners was specifically asked to point out from any revenue record that petitioners were in exclusive possession of area comprised in rectangle No.5, killa No.17/1 and 24; however, learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to refer to any such material/revenue record. 14.1. Rather, a perusal of the order dated 19.09.2025 (P-7) passed by the learned Commissioner would show that the petitioners had claimed possession over area comprised in rectangle No.7, killa Nos.15 and 6. The said objection of the petitioner was considered by the learned Commissioner, Gurugram Division, Gurugram and rejected; by observing as under:- “....After perusing the record of the lower court is it is found that the court below after preparing mode of partition on 29.6.2022 gave opportunity to the parties to file objections on mode of partition. But the revisionist has not filed any objection ANKIT 2026.04.22 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP-39537-2025 (O&M) -6- on mode of partition and court below has sanctioned the mode of partition and for that reason mode of partition has been sanctioned. So the objections of the revisionist at this stage that khasra no. 122 and 126 has wrongly been included in the partition application is not maintainable. With regard to question that the revisionist that on Naksha B possession and front area has not been given to them. On the record of the court below Naksha B has been received on 8.2.2203 and the court below has given 5 opportunities to the parties to file objections on naksha B but the revisionist has not filed any objection on Naksha B, for this reason the objections at this stage has no merit apart from this revisionist has stated in the revision petition that he is in possession of Mustil no. 7, killa n. 15 and 6 on western side but in Naksha B this has not been allotted to them. The statement of revisionist is wrong, because in the Naksha B, Mustil no. 7 killa no. 15 and 6 on western side has been allotted to the revisionist. From the aforesaid facts it is clear that the revisionist in the partition proceedings on that important stage has not mentioned any objection and now at this stage raising objection is at belated stage. Court below in the aforesaid partition application has given full opportunity to file objections on mode of partition and Naksha B and after giving the appropriate opportunity of hearing has passed the order under challenge in this revision petition dated 24.4.2023 and 3.7.2023 in accordance with law and there is no illegality in the above. With the aforesaid reason there is no necessity to interfere in the orders passed by court below and for that reason the revision petition of the revisionist is dismissed being meritless.” 14.2 Apparently, the petitioners, have changed their position, as the stand taken before this Court is at variance with the one maintained before ANKIT 2026.04.22 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP-39537-2025 (O&M) -7- the learned Commissioner. Therefore, the second contention on behalf of petitioners is also rejected. 15. Still further, learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out as to what prejudice has been caused to petitioners by the manner in which the final partition has been carried out. Rather from a perusal of the site plan (available at page No.64 & 65 of the writ petition), it is observed that total land under partition is comprised in several land pockets, wherein, the petitioners are stated to have been allocated area in purple colour. From a perusal of site plan, it is evident that all the land pockets allocated to the share of the petitioners are duly aligned with the passage. It is not the case of the petitioners that they have not been allocated area as per their due entitlement or that they have been allocated inferior quality of land. 16. No other argument has been raised. 17. Considering the totality of circumstances, I see no compelling reason, which may warrant interference by this Court in the present proceedings. Resultantly, the instant writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. 18. All the pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed. (HARSH BUNGER) 17.04.2026 JUDGE ankit Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No ANKIT 2026.04.22 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh