***

HARSH BUNGER, J. (ORAL) --

CM-8170-CWP-2025

1. Prayer in this application is for placing on record copies of jamabandis as Annexure P-22.

2. For the reasons mentioned in application, same is allowed and copies of jamabandis (Annexure P-22) are taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

3. Application is accordingly disposed of.

CWP-3027-2025 (O/M)

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 order dated 12.09.2022 (Annexure P-14), passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Jhajjar (in short 'Assistant Collector'), whereby Naksha 'Bey' in the partition proceedings, has been approved.

1.1 A further prayer has been made for setting aside the order dated 19.03.2023 (Annexure P-17), passed by Assistant Collector, whereby sanad takseem was issued.

1.2 Another prayer has been made for setting aside the order dated 26.02.2024 (Annexure P-19), passed by learned Collector, Jhajjar (in short 'Collector') and order dated 23.10.2024 (Annexure P-21), passed by learned Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak (in short 'Divisional Commissioner'), whereby an appeal and a revision filed by the petitioners against partition proceedings/orders, have been dismissed, respectively.

2. At the outset, petitioners state that they and respondents No. 5 to 8 are related to each other inasmuch as that they had common ancestor, namely, Kallu.

2.1 It appears that Shri Kallu had two sons, namely, Gulji (predecessor of respondents No. 5 to 7 herein) and Himta (predecessor of petitioners and proforma respondent No. 8).

2.2 It is stated that both the aforesaid brothers, namely, Shri Gulji and Shri Himta, were joint owner of the agricultural land and during their lifetime, Gulji filed an application for partition of joint land, whereupon the land was partitioned and sanad takseem dated 08.04.1992 (Annexure P-8) was issued. It is further stated that during the pendency of aforesaid partition proceedings, Shri Gulji had died and accordingly, respondents No. 5 to 7 herein alongwith their mother were impleaded as party and since then, the parties have been cultivating their respective land as per Naksha 'Zeem', which has been stated to be approved on 03.03.1992 (Annexure P-6).

2.3 Petitioners state that after 27 years, respondents No. 5 to 7 filed a fresh partition application on 21.08.2019 (Annexure P-9); wherein the petitioners appeared and filed reply, seeking dismissal of the partition application, in the light of the order dated 08.04.1992 (Annexure P-8), whereby sanad takseem was issued.

2.4 It transpires that second partition proceedings initiated in the year 2019 continued and mode of partition dated 12.01.2022 (Annexure-12) was prepared, which was followed by approval of Naksha 'Bey' dated 12.09.2022 (Annexure P-14) and Naksha 'Zeem' dated 14.03.2023 (Annexure P-16) and ultimately, the partition proceedings concluded with the drawing of sanad takseem dated 19.03.2023 (Annexure P-17).

2.5 Being dis-satisfied, the petitioners filed an appeal before learned Collector, however, same was dismissed, vide order dated 26.02.2024 (Annexure P-19).

2.6 Thereafter, the petitioners preferred a revision petition before learned Divisional Commissioner, however, same has also been dismissed, vide order dated 23.10.2024 (Annexure P-21).

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

4. The only ground raised by learned counsel for petitioners is that second partition application filed in the year 2019 by respondents No. 5 to 7 herein, was bad inasmuch as that the land already stood partitioned way back in the year 1992 by way of sanad takseem dated 08.04.1992 (Annexure P-8),

5. I have considered the aforesaid submission raised on behalf of petitioners.

6. Here, it would be apposite to refer to Section 122 of Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (in short '1887 Act'), which reads as under :-

“122. Delivery of possession of property allotted, on partition.— An owner or tenant to whom any land or portion of a tenancy, as the case may be, is allotted in proceedings for partition shall be entitled to possession thereof as against the other parties to the proceedings and their legal representatives, and a Revenue-officer shall, on application made to him for the purpose by any such owner or tenant at any time within three years from the date recorded in the instrument of partition under the last foregoing section, give effect to that instrument so far as it concerns the applicant as if it were a decree for immovable property.”

6.1 In terms of aforesaid provisions of Section 122 of 1887 Act, the partition is to be executed within a period of three years.

7. Coming to case in hand; a specific query was raised to learned counsel for petitioners as to whether earlier sanad takseem dated 08.04.1992 (Annexure P-8) has been implemented at the spot by delivery of physical possession of land under partition to the respective co-owners, which may be evidenced by the possession proceedings recorded in any rapat rojnamcha of the concerned field revenue officer and/or it has been implemented or reflected in the revenue records.

7.1 In response to the aforesaid query, learned counsel for petitioners has fairly stated that there is no such document on record to indicate that the sanad/takseem dated 08.04.1992 (Annexure P-8) was ever implemented at the spot by delivering physical possession of the land under partition to respective co-sharers neither said sanad takseem has been implemented in the revenue records.

7.2 It is also not disputed by learned counsel for petitioners that second partition application (Annexure P-9) has been filled on the basis of jamabandi for the year 2015-16, wherein the entire land under partition has been shown under joint ownership of the petitioners and private respondents herein. Rather, a perusal of the revenue records i.e. jamabandi for the year 1985-86 (Annexure P-22) shows that the land presently under partition is recorded as joint ownership of Himta and Gulji (predecessors of petitioners and private respondents, respectively). Similar is the position reflected in the jamabandi for the year 1990-91. In the jamabandi for the year 1995-96, Himta son of Kallu (predecessor of petitioners and proforma respondent No. 8 alongwith respondents No. 5 to 7 alongwith their mother and sister are recorded as joint owners of the land, which is presently under partition. Same position is there in jamabandi for the year 2000-01; jamabandi for the year 2005-06; jamabandi for the year 2010-11 and also jamabandi for the year 2015-16, wherein the petitioners alongwith proforma respondent and respondents No. 5 to 7 are recorded as co-owners of the land, which is presently under partition.

7.3 In view of the aforementioned circumstances, once the sanad takseem dated 08.04.1992 (Annexure P-8) was never implemented/ executed at the spot nor the said sanad takseem (Annexure P-8) was reflected/implemented in the revenue records and the status of the partition continued to be recorded joint in the revenue records, it has to be taken that the parties by their conduct chose not to implement the partition in terms of sanad takseem dated 08.04.1992 (Annexure P-8) and chose to keep their holdings joint. In other words, the parties to the earlier partition had abandoned the partition proceedings by not getting the same implemented/executed either at spot or in the revenue records. In that view of the matter, if respondents No. 5 to 7 being co-sharers in the land under partition, as was reflected in the jamabandi for the year 2015-16, have proceeded to get their share partitioned by filing an appropriate partition petition before the revenue authorities, which has been allowed and the partition proceedings have concluded with the drawing of sanad takseem dated 19.03.2023 (Annexure P-17), no fault can be found with the same.

8. No other point has been urged.

9. Considering the totality of circumstances, I find no merit in the instant civil writ petition and same is accordingly dismissed.

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

Petition dismissed.

********