( 2026:HHC:5621 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2337/2026 Decided on: 05.03.2026 Raj Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 5. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no relief has been prayed against respondent No.6 or his successors, therefore, the said respondent be deleted from the array of parties. Prayer is accepted. Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 5. Looking to the prayer made in this writ petition, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the order 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 ( 2026:HHC:5621 being passed hereinafter, reply is not required from the appearing respondents. The matter has accordingly been heard at this stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief: - “Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to conclude the partition proceedings pending before Assistant Collector, Kangoo in Partition Case No.1 of 2022 (Tikka Chalbara) strictly in accordance with directions of the Hon’ble Court in CWP No. 633/2006 (Annexure P-2) as upheld in LPA Nos. 122 and 123 of 2008 (Annexure P-3) and to conclude the partition proceedings strictly in terms thereof within a time bound period as may be fixed by this Hon’ble Court.” 3. Heard learned counsel for parties and considered the case file. 4. One of the Co-sharers of the land parcels-subject matter of partition proceedings, Sh. Mehar Singh, moved two separate applications for partition of the joint land owned by him along with other co-owners, including the present petitioner. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade framed the mode of partition on 23.05.1992. The final partition was sanctioned on 02.09.1993 and 22.04.1995, respectively in the two cases. The said orders were assailed in appeal by some of the co-sharers. The matter was ultimately decided on 05.05.2006 by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh, in Revision Petition Nos. 435 and 436 of 1996, as under: - 3 ( 2026:HHC:5621 “Having gone through the record and perused the written arguments filed by the counsels for the petitioners and respondents. I am of the view that in not partitioning the irrigated land and land that abuts the roadside equitably, gross injustice has been caused to the present petitioners. The revision petition is accepted and the case is remanded to the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade with the directions that classification of land and valuation of land may be kept in view while finalizing the partition proceedings to ensure that justice is done to both parties.” Mehar Singh Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2 and Mehar Singh Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.3 preferred by Sh. Mehar Singh were dismissed on 28.08.2008. Operative portion of Mehar Singh2 reads as under: - “In order to avoid multiplicity of litigation and delay in the partition proceedings, henceforth all the authorities dealing with the partition proceedings shall take into consideration the detailed procedure prescribed under the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1953, Himachal Pradesh Land Records Manual and Punjab Land Administration Manual, as discussed hereinabove. These instructions have been issued to effectively carry out the partition in an equitable manner. The detailed procedure laid down in these instructions, if followed scrupulously would avoid delay and protracted litigation. The endeavour of the authorities while carrying out the partition commencing from the mode of partition till the instrument of partition is prepared, is to ensure that every share holder gets the equitable share taking into consideration the true value of the land. It is reiterated that while carrying out the partition proceedings the classification of the land and proximity to the road should also be taken into consideration. The land which is irrigated and is situated near the 2 CWP No. 633/2006 decided on 28.08.2008 3 CWP No. 634/2006 decided on 28.08.2008 4 ( 2026:HHC:5621 road side is a valuable piece of land. The parties can challenge the partition if the same is not in conformity with the mode of partition as is in the present case. In the present case, it appears that the field agencies were finding it difficult to partition the land strictly as per the mode of partition. That being so, the mode of partition itself could be altered and approved in the presence of parties to avoid delay. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid reasoning, the writ petition is dismissed. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade is directed to carry out the partition strictly as per mode of partition drawn on 23.5.1992 within a period of ten weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs.” Mehar Singh Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. 4and Mehar Singh Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.5 preferred by Sh. Mehar Singh against the above decisions were dismissed on 28.07.2021 with following operative directions: - “25. We may place it on record that the appellant has not been able to answer the pointed query from this Court that what prejudice was caused to the appellant by the impugned judgment or order of Financial Commissioner, when the mode of partition suggested between the parties was neither modified nor set aside. The substantive rights of the parties were not at all affected. It was only a direction to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade to finalize the partition proceedings strictly as per mode of partition drawn on 23.05.1992. The appellant has not been able to show that, in fact, the final partition drawn on 24.04.1994 was strictly in accordance with the mode of partition. It is trite that there cannot be any deviation from the mode of partition suggested between the parties having attained finality and the final partition has to follow such mode in letter and spirit. 4 LPA No. 122/2008 decided on 28.07.2021 5 LPA No. 123/2008 decided on 28.07.2021 5 ( 2026:HHC:5621 26. Before parting, we consider necessary to place it on record that present case is the classical example which sets out tactics being adopted by litigants to prolong the life of litigation beyond reasonable limits with a purpose to deny the adversary benefits of his lawful due. This litigation is almost thirty years old and still without any result. Generation has passed, but it could not enjoy the fruits of their own property. Notwithstanding the fact that the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) passed order dated 5.5.2006 and directed the Assistant Collector 1st Grade only to draw the final partition by taking into consideration classification and value of land, the appellant preferred to assail it before writ court and further in appeal before this Court and the process has consumed more than fifteen years.” Pursuant thereto, the mode of partition was prepared on 28.05.2024 (Annexure P-4). The legal heirs of Sh. Mehar Chand assailed the aforesaid order before the Sub Divisional Collector, Nadaun, District Hamirpur. The appeal was allowed on 23.04.2025, primarily on the ground that Sh. Mehar Chand/his legal heirs had not been afforded due opportunity before passing the order dated 28.05.2024 and that one specific Khata No. 69 had also not been included in the partition proceedings. The petitioner laid challenge to the order dated 28.05.2024 unsuccessfully in Raj Kumar Jaswal Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.6 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid order dated 23.04.2025 has attained finality; Subsequent thereto, the mode of partition was drawn on 6 CWP No. 7986/2025 decided on 15.05.2025 6 ( 2026:HHC:5621 24.07.2025; The instrument of partition has also been prepared, however, the partition proceedings have still not been concluded. Keeping in view the pleadings and the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to the proceedings of the case in hand, as well as the nature of the relief claimed herein vis-a-vis the age of the partition case, which is stated to be still pending, it is deemed just and proper to dispose of this writ petition with directions to the respondents, more particularly respondents No. 3 to 5, to ensure that the partition proceedings in reference are taken to their logical conclusion, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from today. It is made clear that while passing this order, merits of the matter have not been gone into. The order has been passed keeping in view the age of partition proceedings and its stated pendency even as on date. The instant petition to stand disposed of with above directions. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 05th March, 2026(rohit)