Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Challenge to Sanad Takseem; Says Petitioners Failed to Object During Partition Proceedings
Case Name: Naresh Kumar & Another v. State of Haryana & Others
Date of Judgment: October 31, 2025
Citation: CWP-32087-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harsh Bunger
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the sanad takseem (final partition order) of agricultural land at Village Machhraula, Sonipat, holding that the petitioners could not raise objections belatedly after failing to contest the proposed partition plan (naksha kha) during proceedings. Justice Harsh Bunger ruled that the proper remedy against sanad takseem lies before the Commissioner under Section 16 of the Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887, and not directly before the High Court. The Court further held that possession disputes arising from partition cannot invalidate the proceedings once finalized.
Summary: The petitioners sought to quash the sanad takseem dated 24.12.2024 passed by the revenue authorities in partition proceedings of land comprising Khewat No. 48, Khata Nos. 63 and 65, measuring 41 kanal 11 marla at Village Machhraula, Tehsil and District Sonipat. They alleged that their possession over Khasra Nos. 4//19 and 4//20 was wrongly disturbed and that they were allotted land occupied by gair marusi (tenants-at-will), contrary to Clause 6 of the mode of partition.
The Court noted that the petitioners had not objected to the proposed naksha kha—the stage at which co-sharers could contest the manner of partition. Justice Bunger held that once naksha kha was approved and naksha ga finalized, resulting in issuance of sanad takseem, reopening the matter was impermissible. Addressing the claim regarding gair marusi possession, the Court clarified that a tenant’s right of occupation continues only over the area allotted to his original landlord after partition, and not beyond.
Decision: Finding no merit, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and directed that all pending applications stand closed. It emphasized that procedural remedies before the revenue hierarchy must be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227.