121 Kamlesh ...... Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner, Haryana & ors. ..... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN *** Present :- Mr. P.R.Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Present writ petition has been preferred impugning order dated 09.02.2026 (Annexure P-29) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, whereby revision prereferred by respondent No.3-Jai Parkash impugning the partition proceedings conducted at his back has been allowed. 2 Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order submits that once close relative had been served and was aware of the proceedings and the petitioner opted not to associate himself, the Commissioner ought not have set aside the partition proceedings. 3 Having heard counsel for the petitioner and after carefully perusing the records of the case, this Court finds that the judgment rendered in Vidyanand Vs. State of Haryana & ors., 2018 (4) RCR (Civil) 159, by the Coordinate Bench of this Court is based upon observations made by Full POOJA SHARMA 2026.07.10 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Bench of this Court in Biru Vs. Suraj Bhan 1983 AIR (Punjab) 347 is misplaced. 4 While allowing the revision vide impugned order, the Revisional Authority observed as under :- Record reveals that the petitioner-Jai Parkash was never served because at the time of ongoing partition proceedings he was living abroad. Report of the Chowkidar also stated that Jai Parkash was residing in the foreign country, that's why he could not be served, Moreover, the Assistant Collector 1" Grade vide order dated 27.08.2019 wrongly recorded that no objections have been filed by the petitioner despite affording several opportunities of hearing to him. When the petitioner was not served, granting him opportunities of filing objections is of no avail. Proclamation of munadi is also dubious in this case. As there was no order by the revenue court to conduct munadi. Again munadi was conducted in violation of Government of Haryana instructions vide memo no. 559-R-2- 2009/3606 dated 01.05.2009. The said instructions mandate that munadi be done by beat of drum or any other customary method and by pasting copy of same in land to which it relates. Further, munadi required to be entered in Roznamcha Waquati and has to be signed by Chowkidar and two Lambardars of plus witnesses of neighborhood. Herein, munadi report was only signed by chowkidar sans Lambardars and witnesses. On the basis of that incorrect munadi report, Assistant Collector 1st Grade carried out further partition proceedings illegally without serving the other co-sharers including present petitioner. Another anomaly is that the partition proceeding was carried out in violation of law clubbing by two different khewats in which co-sharers were also different. Two co-sharers, namely Suman and Babita were co-sharers in Khewat 5 only, while they have no concern with Khewat No. 4. Despite that Revenue Authority, clubbed both the khewats and partitioned the land violating the rules. It is also observed that straight way Sanad Taksim dated 26.07.2021 was sanctioned without approving Naksha 'Zeem'. Besides, it was mentioned in the order of Sanad Taksim that possession will be delivered on harvesting Rabi crop in the month of March-April 2022. However, the respondent No. 2 in collusion with revenue officials have done the Kabza karwahi on 28.09.2021 illegally, on papers without giving any notice co-sharers, prior to time fixed in Sanad Taksim. The actual physical possession at spot has POOJA SHARMA 2026.07.10 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document not been changed till date and the petitioner Jai Parkash was/is in physical possession of Killa No. 25//14/1/2 which has been wrongly allotted to respondent No. 2. To buttress, the counsel for the petitioner submitted some photographs showing the boundary wall has been erected by him on said Killa Number.” 5 In the present case, respondent No.3 at the time of service and during pendency of the partition proceedings was living abroad. That apart, even the substituted service has been found to be not as per the procedure laid down by law. In these circumstances, the Revisional Authority rightly concluded that the partition proceedings conducted at the back of respondent No.3 while he was not even present in the country, cannot be sustained. 6 This Court finds no reason to interfere in the impugned order. However, the impugned order is modified to the limited extent that the parties shall appear before the Assistant Collector First Grade on 27.07.2026, who shall make an endeavour to conclude the partition proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7 Copy of the order be served upon respondents as well. 8 Petition stands disposed off. ( PANKAJ JAIN ) 01.07.2026 JUDGE Pooja Sharma-I Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No POOJA SHARMA 2026.07.10 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document