LPA-1533-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (131) LPA-1533-2026 (O&M) Sukhbir Singh and others ... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents Judgment Reserved on Judgment Pronounced on Judgment Uploaded on Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced Whether the full judgment is pronounced 08.07.2026 30.07.2026 31.07.2026 No Yes CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA Present:- Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate and Mr. Jashan Singh Sekhon, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Pankaj Midha, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the official respondents. **** SUVIR SEHGAL, J. 1) This appeal has been filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent impugning judgment dated 22.01.2026 passed by the learned single judge, whereby a writ petition filed by the appellants, was dismissed. 2) The genesis of the dispute originates from partition proceedings initiated by respondents No.5 and 6 regarding joint land measuring 19 kanal 7 marlas situated at village Dayalpur, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad. Appellant's father namely, Sh. Richhpal Singh, was impleaded as a party-respondent to the partition application. Initially, he appeared before the revenue authorities, but later, he absented and was proceeded against ex-parte on 24.01.2019. Revenue authorities finalized the KAMAL SHARMA 2026.07.31 13:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh. LPA-1533-2026 (O&M) -2- proceedings as no objections were made to ‘Naksha Kha’ proceedings, culminating in the drawing of sanad taksim (instrument of partition) on 21.01.2021. Subsequent appeals and revisions, preferred by the appellants, before the Collector and Divisional Commissioner, including the writ petition before this Court, have been dismissed. 3) Counsel for the appellants has strenuously argued that there were material irregularities in the conduct of the partition proceedings and by the final partition order, exclusive possession of the appellants over specified constructed area, has been disturbed. It is his contention that learned single judge fell into error by overlooking that sanad taksim was hurriedly issued within one week of the partition order to defeat the appellants statutory right to file an appeal. 4) We have heard counsel for the appellants, considered his submission as well as perused the record with his able assistance. 5) The sole grievance raised by the appellants revolves around alleged disturbance over their exclusive built up area and possession over the land, which is stated to have been partitioned. When specifically called upon during the hearing of the proceedings before the learned single judge as well as before us, appellants failed to demonstrate exclusive possession from the revenue record. They could not point out any cogent material or document supporting their stand. Rather, a bare perusal of the relevant jamabandi shows that under the cultivation column, the land under partition has been described as “Khudkasht Va Makbuja Malkan”. This revenue entry denotes joint possession of all the co-sharers over every square inch of joint property, rather than the exclusive ownership of appellants over the land allegedly in their possession. KAMAL SHARMA 2026.07.31 13:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh. LPA-1533-2026 (O&M) -3- 6) It is evident that the property remained joint in title and possession until its partition. The argument that the actual and exclusive possession has been disrupted lacks any factual backing. 7) A co-sharer cannot seek protection of an exclusive portion of joint land during partition without showcasing an independent possession recorded distinctly in the revenue records. It is a settled position of law that once sanad taksim has been drawn and implemented, partition process stands completed. Thereupon, Collector ceases to hold jurisdiction to alter the partition on merits. It is established on the record that predecessor in interest of the appellants was duly served and he joined the partition proceedings initially, but chose to remain absent thereafter. Appellants have stepped into his shoes and by filing a writ petition, they cannot ask the Courts to re-visit the proceedings, which have attained finality. In view thereof, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the learned single judge. Order under challenge is well reasoned and does not call for any interference. 8) Letters Patent Appeal being devoid of merit and is dismissed. 9) All pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE (DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA) 30.07.2026 JUDGE Kamal Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes Whether Reportable Yes KAMAL SHARMA 2026.07.31 13:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.