Devender Kumar v. State Of Haryana And Others

No. 325//306 (as per Jamabandi for the year 2019-20), situated at Village Dadri, Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri.

2.1 In the said partition proceedings, Naksha 'Kha' was approved vide order dated 20.08.2024 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Charkhi Dadri. It is stated that at the relevant time, the petitioner's father, namely Sh. Ram Kumar, was alive and, being a party to the proceedings, he had made several requests to the revenue authorities for accepting his objections. However, his objections were not accepted. Consequently, he preferred an appeal before the learned Collector, Charkhi Dadri, which was dismissed vide order dated 20.11.2024 (Annexure P-3). 2.2 Feeling aggrieved against the said order dated 20.11.2024 (Annexure P-3), petitioner's father preferred an appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner, Rohtak, which was also dismissed vide order dated 09.06.2025 (Annexure P-5).

2.3 It transpires that in the meanwhile, the learned Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Charkhi Dadri issued Sanad Takseem (Instrument of Partition) dated 10.01.2025 (Annexure P-6), and subsequently, partition proceedings were initiated vide letter/order dated 20.06.2025 (Annexure P-7).

3.

A perusal of order dated 09.06.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Rohtak, indicates that almost two months' time was granted for filing objections. However, since no objections were received during that time, the proposed Naksha 'Kha' came to be approved. Although, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before this Court that various requests were made to the Assistant Collector to accept the objections but the grounds raised before the revenue authorities below indicate that the objections were not accepted due to an ongoing strike and the death of the Reader's brother.

7.

The aforesaid stand of the petitioner is contradictory and without any basis.

8.

That apart, the learned Collector, Charkhi Dadri as well as the learned Divisional Commissioner, Rohtak have recorded findings of fact that the land has been allotted to the co-sharers at two locations and alongside the road, as per their respective shares.

9.

On being specifically queried as to what prejudice has been caused to the petitioner due to the manner in which the partition has been carried out or by allocation of land to respective co-sharers; no response was forthcoming. It is not the petitioner's case that he has not been allotted land as per his due entitlement or that the petitioner has not been granted frontage on the road/passage.

9.1 I have also seen the shares allocated to respective co-sharers in the final partition/Sanad Takseem (vernacular of Annexure P-6 at page

No.68) and compared the same with the site plan (placed at page No.79), which indicates position emanating from Sanad Takseem, and upon perusal thereof, I am of the view that the partition has been carried out in a fair and equitable manner, especially considering the location of land. 10.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find no compelling reason to interfere in the impugned orders and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

11.

All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.