1 2026:HHC:34485 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 14045 of 2026 Decided on: 17.08.2026 Harish Chander …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P and others ..Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Mohit Jaitak, Advocate (through V.C) & Mr. Abhishek Nagta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 5. Ms. Annanya Verma, Ms. Sunny Modgil & Mr. Rajesh Prakash, Advocates for petitioner/ Caveator Mr. Tilak Raj s/o Sh.Yog Raj ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Heard and considered the case file. 2. Respondents No. 6 and 7 both sons of Shri Jogu moved an application on 30.10.2004 before the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Settlement, Badsar, District Una, H.P. seeking partition of land comprised in Khata Nos.486 min & 487 min, total area measuring 195-13 Kanals, situated at Mohal Ram Nagar, Mauza Takka, Tehsil Badsar, District 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:34485 Una, H.P. The application was processed. Mode of partition was finalized on 26.5.2005. This order was assailed by the present petitioner and some other co- sharers by preferring an application under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act. The appeal was barred by limitation. Therefore, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also moved for condoning the appeal. This appeal was dismissed by the concerned Collector on 28.07.2014 on limitation as also on merit. Petitioner alongwith proforma respondents carried the matter further before Divisional Commissioner in Revision Petition which was also dismissed on 21.03.2022. Feeling aggrieved against the three concurrent orders passed against him, petitioner instituted second Revision Petition before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) H.P. Same was also dismissed on 20.02.2026. Not satisfied, the petitioner has invoked the proceedings under Section 226 of Constitution of India assailing four orders concurrently passed by the Revenue Court below. 3. The only ground urged during hearing of this writ petition is that the revenue authorities have proceeded to process the application for partial partition 3 2026:HHC:34485 of land jointly held by the parties. Such partial partition is not permissible. Reliance in this regard was placed upon Dhani Ram (deceased) through his L.Rs versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others.2 Learned counsel submitted that Revenue Courts below have also acknowledged factum of joint holding of the land by the parties, previously in one revenue village i.e. Takka; During settlement operations, revenue village Takka, had been separated into three revenue villages i.e. Ram Nagar, Takka Bishna and Takka Sansala; The parties have their joint lands in the aforesaid three villages whereas respondents No. 6 & 7 had moved the application in question seeking partition of land jointly held by the parties only in village viz. Ram Nagar; The land jointly held by the parties in the other revenue villages was also required to be included in the partition proceedings. Therefore, instant was a case of partial partition, which cannot be processed. 4. I am in agreement with the view of the four revenue authorities below that merely because at one point of time, the entire joint land holding of the parties was comprised in revenue village Takka, is not enough to 2CWP No.2056/2020, decided on 15.11.2022. 4 2026:HHC:34485 dismiss the partition application or to set-aside the mode of partition framed by the authorities on 26.05.2005 on the ground that the said mode prescribed the manner of partition of the joint land held by the parties in revenue village Ram Nagar allegedly being a case of partial partition. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that during settlement operations, revenue village Tikka was divided into three different revenue villages viz. Ram Nagar, Takka Bishan and Takka Sansala. Admittedly, the right holders were having their joint land in these three villages. Once the joint land was owned by the parties in three different revenue villages, the application moved for partitioning the land jointly held by the parties in revenue village Ram Nagar could not have included joint land owned by the parties in other revenue villages. Situation would have been different had some other joint land owned by the parties in the same revenue village was left out from partition proceedings. That admittedly is not the situation here. The land jointly owned by the parties located in different revenue villages, is not mandatorily required to be clubbed in same partition proceeding. Partition can proceed qua the land jointly owned in one revenue village. Facts of Dhani Ram2 were different. The 5 2026:HHC:34485 aforesaid was a case of partial partition as entire joint land holding of parties (therein) in one revenue village was not made subject of partition proceedings. Instant is not a case of partial partition. Entire joint holding of the parties in one revenue village is subject matter of partition. Hence, petitioner’s objection to it on ground of partial partition was justly rejected by the four authorities below. No other point was urged. According, the writ petition fails and same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua August 17, 2026 Judge yogesh