Punjab & Haryana High Court directs status quo in joint land dispute, orders revenue partition proceedings

Case Name: Giano Devi @ Gyano Devi v. Raj Kumar & Ors.
Date of Judgment: October 01, 2025
Citation: CR-6629-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Parmod Goyal

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court disposed of the revision petition by modifying the lower court’s orders and directing both parties to maintain status quo with respect to their respective shares in the joint property until partition proceedings are completed. The Court held that since the land was joint and no specific portion had been allotted to either party, neither could interfere with the other’s possession to the extent of their purchased share. The Court further directed the revenue authorities to expedite partition proceedings to avoid future disputes.

Summary: The petitioner, Giano Devi, had filed a civil suit for permanent injunction claiming possession over khasra numbers 22 (8-0) and 23 (8-0), situated in Village Bajidpur, Karnal. The trial court initially granted status quo in her favour, recognizing her as a co-sharer. However, on appeal, the Additional District Judge set aside the order, finding that both the plaintiff and the respondents were co-sharers in the joint land, each claiming possession based on separate sale deeds — the plaintiff over six kanals and respondent no. 5 over nine kanals.

Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that she sought protection only over her six-kanal share as per her sale deed, not the entire 16-kanal area. The respondents countered that they held possession of their nine-kanal share and did not interfere with the petitioner’s six kanals. Justice Parmod Goyal observed that both sides admitted their co-ownership and were in possession only to the extent of their respective shares, with the land yet to be formally partitioned.

Decision: The Court ordered both parties to maintain status quo over the land portions corresponding to their sale deeds—six kanals for the plaintiff and nine kanals for the respondents—and restrained either from encroaching upon the other’s possession. It directed the revenue authorities to expedite partition proceedings under law and clarified that the irrigation source shall remain joint until partition. The petition was accordingly disposed of with these directions.