Punjab Land Revenue Act | Revenue Officer Must Strictly Adhere To Approved Mode Of Partition Verbatim: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"It is also a well settled principle established through numerous judgments of this Court that it is of paramount importance that in partition proceedings, the approved mode of partition must be adhered to verbatim." Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that under Section 118 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, revenue authorities are legally obligated to ensure strict and verbatim adherence to the approved mode of partition while carving out shares.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Suvir Sehgal and Rajesh Gaur affirmed that when the mode of partition is sanctioned for an entire joint landholding, revenue officials cannot selectively prepare partition maps or allot land for only a fragmented portion thereof. The Bench underscored that any departure from the sanctioned mode vitiates the statutory mandate governing agricultural partition proceedings.

The dispute stems from a partition application preferred by the appellant concerning a joint agricultural landholding measuring 700 kanals-12 marlas as per the jamabandi for the year 2011-2012. Although the mode of partition was proposed and sanctioned for the entire holding, Naksha 'Urra' was prepared only for 156 kanals-12 marlas, prompting objections from co-sharers that spot inspection was not conducted properly. After multiple rounds of litigation before revenue appellate fora, the Single Judge allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade for fresh consideration from the stage of Naksha 'Bey', which was challenged by the appellant.

The primary question before the court was whether the preparation of Naksha 'Urra' carving out merely 156 kanals-12 marlas conformed with the sanctioned mode of partition and the statutory requirements of Section 118 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. The court was also called upon to determine whether the Single Judge erred in remanding the proceedings for fresh consideration from the stage of Naksha 'Bey'.

Statutory Duty Of Revenue Officers Under Section 118

The Division Bench began by examining the amended Section 118 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, which delineates the precise duty cast upon a Revenue Officer during the allotment of partitioned holdings. The court noted that Sub-section (1) mandates the officer to allot specific portions of land strictly in accordance with the sanctioned mode of partition, following which the instrument of partition under Section 121 must be drawn.

The judges stressed that the statutory text leaves no discretionary latitude to the revenue authorities to deviate from the settled parameters of partition once approved. The court observed that the procedural scheme governing partition proceedings necessarily requires the competent authority to ensure that strict compliance with the sanctioned mode of partition is exercised at every subsequent stage.

Approved Mode Of Partition Must Be Adhered To Verbatim

The Bench underscored that established legal principles across decades of settled jurisprudence mandate unquestioned compliance with the sanctioned mode. The court observed that in determining the area of land to be allotted to the applicant and the respondents, the Revenue Officer is bound to follow the approved mode without making piecemeal or unilateral alterations.

The court observed that it is a well-settled principle established through numerous precedents that in partition proceedings, the approved mode of partition must be adhered to verbatim. The Bench remarked that any partition map that fails to reflect the approved parameters cannot be sustained in law.

Revenue Authority Erred By Preparing Map For Fragmented Holding

Turning to the factual matrix on record, the High Court observed that while the partition application and the approved mode encompassed the comprehensive joint holding of 700 kanals-12 marlas, Naksha 'Urra' was drawn up selectively for an area of only 156 kanals-12 marlas. The court found this exercise fundamentally flawed and contrary to the record.

The Bench highlighted that the Revenue Officer, while approving the Naksha 'Urra' for merely a part of the land holding, had considerably failed to comply with the indispensable mandate of Section 118. The allotment was legally required to be carried out for the entire estate as per the approved mode, rather than arbitrarily carving out a fraction.

Single Judge Rightly Remanded Proceedings From Stage Of Naksha 'Bey'

In light of the statutory transgression committed by the revenue authorities, the Division Bench held that the Single Judge had appropriately intervened to correct the procedural anomaly. The court observed that since the initial partition map was not in conformity with the sanctioned mode of partition, the matter rightly warranted remittal.

The court affirmed the direction remanding the case to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Patran, for fresh determination from the stage of Naksha 'Bey' in terms of the Collector-cum-SDM's order dated 31.03.2022. Consequently, finding no infirmity in the approach of the Single Judge, the Division Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal.

"The Revenue Officer while approving the Naksha 'Urra' for a part of the land holding, which is an area of 156 Kanals-12 Marlas, has considerably failed to comply with the indispensable provision of Section 118, which obligated that the allotment shall be made in accordance with the approved mode of partition."

The Division Bench concluded that revenue authorities cannot partition joint landholdings piecemeal in contravention of the approved mode of partition covering the whole property. By upholding the remand of the proceedings from the stage of Naksha 'Bey', the ruling reaffirms the strict procedural sanctity and mandatory compliance governing revenue partition under Section 118 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act.

Date of Decision: 15 October 2026