CWP-3443-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 114 CWP-3443-2026 Date of decision : 03.07.2026 Ram Phal ...... Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Rohit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. **** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral) 1. Present writ petition is directed against order dated 03.07.2025 (P-7) by the Commissioner, Sub Division Rohtak, wherein on the appeal preferred by respondent under Section 13 of the Haryana Land Revenue Act, the Appellate Court observed as under:- “I have examined the records placed on the file. After comparatively evaluating the submissions made by the learned counsel for both parties, I have reached the conclusion that, in view of the principles of natural justice, the mode of partition must include not only the aspect of possession but also the factors of category and value. Further, the spot- inspection report clearly establishes that the respondent is in possession of land in excess of his rightful share. Consequently, the present revision is found to be substantial, logical, and well-founded, and is therefore partly allowed. The judgment dated 10.07.2024 passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer (Civil) and Collector, Gohana in Case No. 93/SDO(C)/2023 is found to be weak, illogical, and baseless, and is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the lower court with the direction that the excess land found in the possession of the respondent shall be redistributed by breaking such possession and allotting the same to the other co-sharers, while duly considering the category and value of DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.06 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3443-2026 the land so that no unjust loss is caused to the appellants. The concerned parties shall appear before the lower court on 04.08.2025 to pursue their respective cases.” 2. The grievance raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the finding recorded by the Commissioner with respect to the petitioners being in possession of more than their share is erroneous, as the excess share is not of the khewat under partition, but of a separate khewat. 3. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and after carefully pursuing the records, this Court finds that the Commissioner vide impugned order has remanded the partition proceedings to the Court of Assistant Collector directing that the excess land, if found in the possession of the respondent be re-distributed and the land should be distributed after considering the category and value of land. 4. In view of above, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the impugned order apart from the modification that the petitioner shall be allowed to raise plea disputing the finding recorded by the Commissioner with respect to excess possession. The same shall be considered by the Court of Assistant Collector and the matter will be decided without being prejudiced by the findings recorded by the Commissioner. 5. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed off. (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE 03.07.2026 Dinesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether Reportable : No DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.06 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document