Once You Participate, You Can’t Turn Back: P&H High Court Dismisses Writ Against Partition Order After Petitioner’s Counsel Submitted No Objection

“Having Appeared and Submitted No Objection, Petitioner Cannot Now Reopen Partition Proceedings” – P&H High Court Emphasises Finality of Revenue Proceedings Once Participation is Established

In a significant judgment delivered on October 9, 2025, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, refusing to interfere with a partition order dated 30.08.2018 passed by the Assistant Collector, Narnaul, and affirmed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana on 09.08.2024.

Justice Harsh Bunger categorically held that once a party has participated in partition proceedings and failed to raise objections at the appropriate stage, they cannot turn around later to assail the process on vague and unsubstantiated grounds. The Court remarked that judicial review under Article 226 does not extend to “re-appreciation of facts or reopening of revenue proceedings unless there is a jurisdictional error or manifest illegality.”

“Mere Allegation of Wrong Address Without Supporting Revenue Record is Meritless” – Court Rejects Claim of Ex Parte Order Based on Suppressed Address

The petitioner, Mandeep Singh, challenged the partition proceedings alleging that respondent No.3 had deliberately mentioned a wrong address in the partition application, thereby ensuring his ex parte exclusion. The Court, however, found that the petitioner failed to produce any material to support this assertion.

“No jamabandi, no khasra girdawari, or any other revenue document has been placed on record to show that respondent No.3 knew the petitioner’s correct address and still misrepresented it,” observed the Court.

Justice Bunger noted that in absence of any document showing the petitioner's address or evidence that the respondent deliberately suppressed it, such allegations must fail.

“Petitioner’s Counsel Participated, Submitted Reply, and Raised No Objection to Naksha Bey” – Estoppel Applies Against Post-Facto Challenge

What decisively turned the case against the petitioner was the undisputed fact that his counsel had appeared before the Assistant Collector, submitted a written reply on 28.08.2018, and even gave a no-objection to Naksha Bey, as recorded in the Zimini Order dated 06.07.2018.

The Financial Commissioner had noted that “the petitioner’s lawyer had appeared, filed a reply, and never objected to the mode of partition or Naksha Zeem.” The High Court endorsed this view, holding that the petitioner, having actively participated in the proceedings, is now barred from challenging them under the doctrine of estoppel.

“The petitioner had every opportunity to raise objections to Naksha Alif, Naksha Bey, or the mode of partition. Having failed to do so, he cannot now come to the Court alleging injustice,” the Court held.

“Writ Court Will Not Act as a Court of Appeal in Revenue Matters” – No Jurisdictional Error or Fraud Shown

The High Court reiterated that the scope of judicial review under Article 226 in matters of partition under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, is extremely narrow. Unless the order suffers from lack of jurisdiction, procedural illegality, or is vitiated by fraud, High Courts will not interfere with factual findings or completed partition processes.

“No such infirmity is found in the present case. The findings of fact recorded by the Assistant Collector and the Financial Commissioner are well-reasoned and based on record,” observed Justice Bunger.

Concluding that the petitioner had participated in the proceedings, submitted replies, and raised no objection at relevant stages, the Court held that he cannot now challenge the sanad takseem issued by the Assistant Collector, years after its finalisation.

“The writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. All pending applications also stand closed,” concluded the Court.

Date of Decision: 09 October 2025