1 CWP-30739-2018 ( O&M) [226] IN THE HIGH COURT OFF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGAARH CWP-307739-2018 (O&M) Date of DDecision : 01.07.2026 Kashmir SSingh (since deceased through LLRs) …Petitioners versus Divisionaal Commissioner, Rohtak Divisioon, Rohtak annd others ….Respondents Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PPANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Deepak Girotra, Advocatte for the petitioners. Mr. Abhimanyu Antil, DAG,, Haryana. Mr. Shobit Phutela, Advocaate for respondent Nos.3 & 4. Mr. Ashish Khatkar, Advocatte for Mr. Dinesh Arora, Advocaate for respondent Nos.5 to 7. **** PANKAJJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) [1] The present writ petition has been directed against Orders daated 14.03.20118 (Annexures P-5 & P-6) whereeby Sanad Taksim and Naksha ‘GGa’ has been ordered by respondent No.2-AAssistant Collector, Ist Class-cuum-Tehsildar , Tehsil Kalanaur, District RRohtak and against order daated 11.07.20118 (Annexure P-8) whereby the appeal preferred by the petitionners before resspondent No.1, has been dismiss ed. [2] The present writ petition hass arisen out of partition proceedings initiated bby the private respondents. Fathher of the present petitioner, nammely Kashmir SSingh son of Sher Singh, being one of the co-sharers was arraignned as responndent No.5. Kashmir Singh apppeared and contested the partittion RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.07.10 17:10 proceedinngs. He unfortunately died on 133.07.2016. I agree to specified portions of this document 2 CWP-30739-2018 ( O&M)

[3] The factum of death of Kashhmir Singh was not brought to the notice of the revenue Courts. The partitioon proceedings culminated in orrder dated 14.003.2018. The petitioners preferrred appeal. [4] The same stands dismissed vvide impugned order Annexure P-8 observingg that the partition proceedings wwere initiated while Kashmir Sinngh was alive . Kashmir Singh participated inn the proceedings. Thus it was dutyd of his LRss to present themselves before thhe proceedings. Having failed too do so, they ccannot be allowed to seek annulmment of the partition proceedings at this stage.. [5] Counsel for the petitioners hhas assailed the order passed by the authoritie s. He submits that the petitionners are LRs of deceased-Kashmir Singh. TThough, Kashmir Singh particiipated in the proceedings but the petitionerrs were not in the knowledge off the same. No effort was madee by the partitiion applicant to implead LRs off Kashmir Singh. Even the factt of death of Kashmir Singh was not broughht to the notice of the Court evven though thhe applicant is the real brotheer of Kashmir Singh. He furtther submits tthat prejudice has been cause d to the petitioners as the morem valuable lland abutting the main road hass fallen to the share of the partittion applicant and the Assistant Collector has partitioned the land withhout evaluatingg the same.

[6] Per contra, Mr. Phutela, subbmits that Kashmir Singh appeaared before thee Assistant Collector, Ist Grade. He along with other four brothhers were beinng represented by the same counnsel. It is too late in the day for the petitionerrs to claim ignorance about partiition proceedings as the contenttion is highly uunbelievable. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.07.10 17:10 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 CWP-30739-2018 ( O&M) [7] Having heard counsel for thee parties and after carefully perussing of the reccords of the case, this Court ffinds that it is not in dispute thatt Kashmir SSingh was one of the co-sharers in the joint land and was arraignned as one off the respondents in partition appplication. During the pendencyy of the partitiion application, Kashmir Singh ddied. Neither of the parties, i.e. the applicant or anyone of the remaining resppondents, brought it to the noticee of the Court that Kashmir Singh has died. NNo notice was ever issued to LRss of deceased--Kashmir Singh. [8] In view of the above, thiis Court finds that the partittion proceedinngs conducted at the back of LRRs of Kashmir Singh who becaame co-sharerss in estate on his death cannot bbe sustained. The same are hereeby set aside.

[9] Parties are directed to appearr before the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade on 15.07.2026. The Assistant Colllector, 1st Grade, shall re-adjudiccate upon the application for partition from thhe stage Kashmir Singh died. TheT necessaryy exercise be completed expediti ously within a period of 06 monnths from the ddate of appearance of the parties . [10] Writ petition stands disposedd off. [11] All pending miscellaneouss application(s), if any, staands disposed ooff. (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE 01.07.20226 ‘R. Sharma' Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.07.10 17:10 I agree to specified portions of this document

1 CWP-30739-2018 ( O&M) [226] IN THE HIGH COURT OFF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGAARH CWP-307739-2018 (O&M) Date of DDecision : 01.07.2026 Kashmir SSingh (since deceased through LLRs) …Petitioners versus Divisionaal Commissioner, Rohtak Divisioon, Rohtak annd others ….Respondents Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PPANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Deepak Girotra, Advocatte for the petitioners. Mr. Abhimanyu Antil, DAG,, Haryana. Mr. Shobit Phutela, Advocaate for respondent Nos.3 & 4. Mr. Ashish Khatkar, Advocatte for Mr. Dinesh Arora, Advocaate for respondent Nos.5 to 7. **** PANKAJJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) [1] The present writ petition has been directed against Orders daated 14.03.20118 (Annexures P-5 & P-6) whereeby Sanad Taksim and Naksha ‘GGa’ has been ordered by respondent No.2-AAssistant Collector, Ist Class-cuum-Tehsildar , Tehsil Kalanaur, District RRohtak and against order daated 11.07.20118 (Annexure P-8) whereby the appeal preferred by the petitionners before resspondent No.1, has been dismiss ed. [2] The present writ petition hass arisen out of partition proceedings initiated bby the private respondents. Fathher of the present petitioner, nammely Kashmir SSingh son of Sher Singh, being one of the co-sharers was arraignned as responndent No.5. Kashmir Singh apppeared and contested the partittion RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.07.10 17:10 proceedinngs. He unfortunately died on 133.07.2016. I agree to specified portions of this document 2 CWP-30739-2018 ( O&M)

[3] The factum of death of Kashhmir Singh was not brought to the notice of the revenue Courts. The partitioon proceedings culminated in orrder dated 14.003.2018. The petitioners preferrred appeal. [4] The same stands dismissed vvide impugned order Annexure P-8 observingg that the partition proceedings wwere initiated while Kashmir Sinngh was alive . Kashmir Singh participated inn the proceedings. Thus it was dutyd of his LRss to present themselves before thhe proceedings. Having failed too do so, they ccannot be allowed to seek annulmment of the partition proceedings at this stage.. [5] Counsel for the petitioners hhas assailed the order passed by the authoritie s. He submits that the petitionners are LRs of deceased-Kashmir Singh. TThough, Kashmir Singh particiipated in the proceedings but the petitionerrs were not in the knowledge off the same. No effort was madee by the partitiion applicant to implead LRs off Kashmir Singh. Even the factt of death of Kashmir Singh was not broughht to the notice of the Court evven though thhe applicant is the real brotheer of Kashmir Singh. He furtther submits tthat prejudice has been cause d to the petitioners as the morem valuable lland abutting the main road hass fallen to the share of the partittion applicant and the Assistant Collector has partitioned the land withhout evaluatingg the same.

[6] Per contra, Mr. Phutela, subbmits that Kashmir Singh appeaared before thee Assistant Collector, Ist Grade. He along with other four brothhers were beinng represented by the same counnsel. It is too late in the day for the petitionerrs to claim ignorance about partiition proceedings as the contenttion is highly uunbelievable. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.07.10 17:10 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 CWP-30739-2018 ( O&M) [7] Having heard counsel for thee parties and after carefully perussing of the reccords of the case, this Court ffinds that it is not in dispute thatt Kashmir SSingh was one of the co-sharers in the joint land and was arraignned as one off the respondents in partition appplication. During the pendencyy of the partitiion application, Kashmir Singh ddied. Neither of the parties, i.e. the applicant or anyone of the remaining resppondents, brought it to the noticee of the Court that Kashmir Singh has died. NNo notice was ever issued to LRss of deceased--Kashmir Singh. [8] In view of the above, thiis Court finds that the partittion proceedinngs conducted at the back of LRRs of Kashmir Singh who becaame co-sharerss in estate on his death cannot bbe sustained. The same are hereeby set aside.

[9] Parties are directed to appearr before the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade on 15.07.2026. The Assistant Colllector, 1st Grade, shall re-adjudiccate upon the application for partition from thhe stage Kashmir Singh died. TheT necessaryy exercise be completed expediti ously within a period of 06 monnths from the ddate of appearance of the parties . [10] Writ petition stands disposedd off. [11] All pending miscellaneouss application(s), if any, staands disposed ooff. (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE 01.07.20226 ‘R. Sharma' Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.07.10 17:10 I agree to specified portions of this document