Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Partition Constructed Property: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Findings of Lower Courts
Case Name: Govind Ram and Others v. Man Singh and Others
Date of Judgment: 06 March 2026
Citation: RSA-538-2014
Bench: Justice Nidhi Gupta
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that where joint property has ceased to be agricultural land and contains substantial construction, partition cannot be carried out by revenue authorities and falls within the jurisdiction of civil courts. The Court further held that findings of lower courts based on misreading of evidence and incorrect assumptions regarding revenue partition proceedings are unsustainable in law.
Summary: The Regular Second Appeal was filed by the plaintiffs challenging the judgments of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palwal dated 20.09.2012 and the Additional District Judge, Palwal dated 10.10.2013, whereby their suit seeking possession by way of partition of certain joint property had been dismissed.
The plaintiffs claimed that they owned half share in the disputed land situated in village Atohan, District Palwal, while the defendants owned the remaining half share. According to the plaintiffs, the property had not been partitioned by metes and bounds and therefore they sought partition through a civil suit.
The plaintiffs had earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from raising construction on the land. During those proceedings, a Local Commissioner inspected the site and reported the existence of construction on the disputed property. The injunction suit was later withdrawn after construction had already been raised.
Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed a petition before the revenue authorities seeking partition of the entire land measuring 137 kanals 13 marlas. However, during those proceedings the defendants themselves asserted that certain khasra numbers, including the suit property, had ceased to be agricultural land. Consequently, the Assistant Collector excluded those khasra numbers from the partition proceedings before the revenue authorities.
Despite this development, the trial court dismissed the civil suit on the ground that the plaintiffs had already sought partition before the revenue authorities and that partition proceedings had been completed. The first appellate court affirmed this reasoning.
The High Court found these conclusions to be based on incorrect appreciation of facts and evidence. The Court noted that an order passed by the Assistant Collector had expressly excluded the suit property from the revenue partition proceedings. Therefore, the reasoning that the property was still part of revenue partition proceedings was factually incorrect.
The Court also clarified the legal distinction between “Naksha K” and “Naksha Be” in partition proceedings. While Naksha K merely represents a preliminary stage, actual partition is completed only when the mode of partition (Naksha Be) is finalized. In the present case, only Naksha K had been prepared and the partition process had not been completed.
Further, the High Court examined the Local Commissioner’s report and observed that the lower courts had misread the report by treating the construction on the land as temporary. The report in fact indicated the existence of old residential constructions on the disputed property.
Since the property had ceased to be agricultural land and contained construction, the Court held that it could not be partitioned by revenue authorities. In such circumstances, jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute lay with the civil court.
The Court therefore concluded that the lower courts had wrongly dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit by ignoring crucial evidence and by incorrectly applying the law relating to partition and jurisdiction.
Decision: The High Court allowed the Regular Second Appeal, set aside the judgments and decrees passed by both the trial court and the first appellate court, and decreed the plaintiffs’ suit seeking partition of the disputed property.