!"#"   $%& '%( %  )* ( %#!!+%  !, *$- Guddi Devi ...Appellant Versus Commissioner, Division Hisar, Hisar and others ...Respondents $%& .%( %  )* ( %#!!%  !, *$- Guddi Devi ...Appellant Versus Commissioner, Division Hisar, Hisar and others ...Respondents  $  /($" 0
0
$0
0
 /($" 0
1
200
Present: Mr. Pankaj Gautam, Advocate for Dr. N.K. Gautam, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** 0
$0
0
 3", (-   $%& '%( %  ( %#!!+%  !* $%& .%( %  ( %#!!%  ! Prayer in the present applications is for recalling of order dated 04.02.2026, by which the appeals were dismissed for nonprosecution by a common order. Keeping in view the averments made in the applications, which are duly supported by affidavits, order dated 04.02.2026 is recalled and the appeals are restored to their original numbers and status. On the request of learned counsel for the appellant, the appeals are taken on board for consideration. CMs stand disposed of. HARISH KUMAR 2026.04.01 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment ( %#!!+%  !, *$-*, - ( %#!!%  !, *$- ( %#!!+%  !, *$-* ( %#!!%  !, *$- 1. By this order, we propose to dispose of LPA35562025 and LPA35582025 by a common judgment as the order impugned therein is same. 2. In the present appeals, the challenge is to the order dated 01.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which two writ petitions bearing Nos.12038 of 2025 and 12072 of 2025 filed by the appellant challenging the partition proceedings have been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has again raised two arguments which were raised before the learned Single Judge. First, the partition should have been done by clubbing the khewats and secondly, that no watercourse was provided in the land under partition. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the said issue has not been decided correctly. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record with his able assistance. 5. In the appeal, the order passed by the learned Single Judge can only be interpreted in case the same is proved to be perverse either on fact or on law.  The two issues which were raised before the learned Single Judge have been decided in paragraphs 13 and 13.1 of the impugned judgment. Learned counsel for the appellant was asked to prove the findings so recorded to be perverse to the facts on record.  Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to rebut the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. HARISH KUMAR 2026.04.01 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment ( %#!!+%  !, *$-*,#- ( %#!!%  !, *$- 6. Still, it may be noticed that qua the arguments which have been raised with regard to the clubbing of two khewats, which has been rejected by the learned Single Judge, a valid reason has been given by the learned Single Judge that the two separate khewats are being owned by the separate cosharers and therefore, the same could not have been clubbed for partition.  The said reason has gone unrebutted even in appeal. 7. With regard to the arguments qua the watercourse, the finding has been recorded by the learned Single Judge that there was no watercourse operating for the last more than three decades and the appellant has even failed to show that any irrigation was being done through the said alleged watercourse.  Even in the present appeal, the said findings have not been rebutted. 8. Keeping in view the above, as the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge have not been rebutted to be proved as perverse either to the facts or on law, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the present appeals are dismissed. 9. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 10. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. ,0
$0
0
-   ,1
200
- $45 !3    

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No HARISH KUMAR 2026.04.01 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment