***

HARSH BUNGER, J. (ORAL) –

1. Prayer in the instant civil writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India, inter alia, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 11.04.2025 (Annexure P-12), passed by learned Commissioner, Gurugram Division, Gurugram (in short 'Divisional Commissioner'); order dated 07.03.2024 (Annexure P-7) and order dated 25.04.2024 (Annexure P-8), passed by Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Manesar (in short 'Assistant Collector').

2. Briefly, private respondents No. 5 to 7 herein, sought partition of joint land, comprised in Khewat No. 244, measuring 42 Kanal – 0 Marla (as per jamabandi 2017-18), situated at village Bilaspur, Tehsil Manesar, District Gurugram.

2.1 The petitioners appeared and participated in the aforesaid partition proceedings. The mode of partition (Annexure P-4) came to be prepared on 09.11.2023 and same was sanctioned, vide order dated 07.12.2023, passed by Assistant Collector. Thereafter, Naksha 'Bey' was called from field staff.

2.2 Upon receipt of Naksha 'Bey', objections thereto were called from the respective parties.

2.3 The petitioners No. 1 to 8 filed their objections to Naksha 'Bey', however; said objections were rejected by Assistant Collector, vide order dated 07.03.2024 (Annexure P-7) and Naksha 'Bey' was approved.

2.4 It appears that the aforesaid order dated 07.03.2024 (Annexure P-7) was challenged by the petitioners before learned Collector, Manesar (in short 'Collector). During the pendency of appeal before learned Collector, sanad takseem came to be issued, vide order dated 25.04.2024 (Annexure P-8).

2.5 Thereafter, learned Collector, vide order dated 02.12.2024 (Annexure P-11), set aside the order dated 07.03.2024 (Annexure P-7), whereby Naksha 'Bey' had been approved and further remanded the matter to Assistant Collector.

2.6 Feeling aggrieved, respondents No. 5 to 7 preferred a revision petition before learned Divisional Commissioner, who vide order dated 11.04.2025 (Annexure P-12), allowed the revision petition and restored the order dated 07.03.2024 (Annexure P-7) and also upheld the sanad takseem dated 25.04.2024 (Annexure P-8).

3. In the aforementioned circumstances, the petitioners have filed the instant civil writ petition before this Court for seeking relief(s), as noticed hereinabove.

4. Heard.

5. Apparently, private respondents No. 5 to 7 sought partition of joint land, wherein Naksha 'Bey' came to be approved, vide order dated 07.03.2024 (Annexure P-7). Although, said order dated 07.03.2024 (Annexure P-7), approving Naksha 'Bey' was challenged by the petitioners by filing an appeal before learned Collector, however; during the pendency of appeal, partition proceedings concluded with the drawing of sanad takseem dated 25.04.2024 (Annexure P-8). Thereafter, learned Collector in a totally illegal and arbitrary manner set aside the order dated 07.03.2024 (Annexure P-7) despite the fact that the sanad takseem already stood issued and on that account, learned Collector had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter, especially in view of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of 'Amar Khan and others Versus State of Punjab and others', 2009 (1) RCR (Civil) 741, wherein following observations have been made :-

“ …..Even otherwise in our considered opinion. the provisions of the Act do not envisage the filing of an appeal against the preparation of the Sanad Takseem. This however would not bar an aggrieved person from invoking the jurisdiction of the Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India or that of the Financial Commissioner under Section 16(i) of the Act, which reads as follows :-

"16. Power to call for examine and revise proceedings of Revenue-officers. - (1) The Financial Commissioner may at any time call for the record of any may case pending before or disposed of by any Revenue-officer subordinate to him."

5.1 Even otherwise, learned Collector did not return any finding as regards sanad takseem is concerned. Be that as it may, learned Divisional Commissioner on a revision petition filed by respondents No. 5 to 7, had set aside learned Collector's order and maintained the order dated 07.03.2024 (Annexure P-7), whereby Naksha 'Bey' was approved and also sanad takseem dated 25.04.2024, by observing as under :-

“16. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 02.12.2024, the revisionists approached this Court challenging the validity, legality, and jurisdictional competence of the Collector's order on various grounds. After thorough perusal of the entire record, detailed consideration of the submissions advanced, and careful scrutiny of judicial precedents relied upon, this Court finds substantive merit in the contentions raised by the revisionists.

17. Firstly, on careful analysis, it is unequivocally established that the appeal filed by the respondents before the Collector, Manesar, on 30.04.2024 challenging the order dated 07.03.2024, was evidently beyond the statutory limitation period of 30 days a stipulated under Section 14 (a) of the Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887. The respondents neither sought condonation of this delay nor did the Collector address this fundamental procedural irregularity, thus rendering the appeal non-maintainable at the outset.

18. Secondly, it is a well-settled legal position that once the Sanad Taksim is issued, subordinate revenue authorities including the Collector lose jurisdiction, and any grievance against such final partition must be addressed to the Divisional Commissioner. The impugned order of the Collector dated 02.12.2024, having been passed subsequent to the issuance of Sanad Taksim, is patently devoid of jurisdiction. Reliance placed on authoritative decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court including Prem Singh vs. Birbal (2006), Chiranjilal Goenka vs. Jasjit Singh (1993), and Shiv Kumar Sharma vs. Santosh Kumar (2008), squarely supports this finding, rendering the Collector's order void ab-initio and legally unenforceable.

19. Thirdly, this Court has closely examined the circumstances under which the amended Naksha 'B' dated 12.11.2024 was ordered and prepared by the Collector. The records clearly demonstrate that this amended Naksha was directed without specifying substantive grounds or justifications for its necessity, thereby constituting an arbitrary and non-speaking exercise of appellate discretion, contrary to settled principles of natural justice emphasized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa vs. Dhaniram Luhar (2004), Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin (2012), and Kishore Kumar Khaitan vs. Praveen Kumar Singh (2006).

20. Further, upon meticulous comparison of the amended Naksha 'B' dated 12.11.2024 with the original Naksha 'B' approved on 07.03.2024, this Court observes that the amended Naksha largely mirrors the original except for a significant irregularity; specifically, an area measuring 1 Kanal 11 Marla has been unnecessarily allocated as a “Rasta” (passage) on the south-eastern side of the land. This allocation appears entirely arbitrary, devoid of necessity, and lacks justification since the passage neither connects nor leads to any other public or private thoroughfare. Such justified allocation of valuable agricultural land for a redundant passage constitutes unnecessary fragmentation and detrimentally impacts agricultural efficiency and equitable utilization of joint property.

21. In view of the above considerations, this Court concludes that the impugned order dated 02.12.2024 passed by the Collector, Manesar, suffers from significant jurisdictional infirmities, serious procedural irregularities, and manifests arbitrary decision-making. The amended Naksha 'B' dated 12.11.2024 is both procedurally defective and substantively flawed, causing avoidable fragmentation and loss of valuable land without serving any legitimate purpose.

22. Consequently, the impugned order dated 02.12.2024 passed by the Collector, Manesar is hereby set aside. Resultantly, the original order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the Assistant Collector-II Grade, Manesar, approving the Naksha 'B' and the Sanad Taksim issued subsequently on 25.04.2024 are upheld, restored, and affirmed. The present revision petition accordingly stands allowed.”

5.2 Having considered the facts of this case and after going through the aforesaid findings returned by learned Divisional Commissioner, I am of the considered view that the learned Divisional Commissioner is justified in passing the order dated 11.04.2025 (Annexure P-12) for the reasons recorded therein. I find no illegality or perversity in the same, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India.

5.3 That apart, learned counsel for petitioners has failed to point out as to what prejudice has been caused to petitioners by the manner in which land has been partitioned amongst co-sharers in terms of Naksha 'Bey' approved, vide order dated 07.03.2024.

6. Resultantly, the instant civil writ petition fails and same is accordingly dismissed.

7. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand closed.

Petition dismissed.

********