Anuja Singhal and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Anuja Singhal and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to respondent No.5 to decide the petitioners' statutory appeal (under Section 20 of the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran Act, 1977) against the order/notice dated 25.04.2025 of the Estate Officer, HSVP, Sonipat, preferably within one month, after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to all concerned, in accordance with law; liberty reserved to the petitioners to challenge any prejudicial decision.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.5 should be directed to expeditiously decide the petitioners' appeal (Annexure P-23) under Section 20 of the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran Act, 1977 against the order/notice dated 25.04.2025, or at least the prayer for stay filed along with the appeal.

Court's answer

The petitioners' alternative prayer for an early decision on their appeal/stay application was found reasonable, and the learned State counsel raised no objection to its acceptance.

Ratio / Principle

The petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.5 to take a decision, preferably within one month, on the statutory appeal challenging the order/notice dated 25.04.2025 of the Estate Officer, HSVP, Sonipat, but only after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to all concerned, in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

If the decision taken by respondent No.5 on the petitioners' appeal is prejudicial to their interest, the petitioners would be at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law.ratio¶19
By issuing the directions, the court is not commenting on the merits of the appeal filed by the petitioners or on the maintainability/entertainability of their claim.obiter¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (CWP-13699-2025, decided 22.05.2025; Deepak Sibal, J.) disposed of a writ petition in which the petitioners, who had filed an appeal (Annexure P-23) under Section 20 of the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran Act, 1977 before respondent No.5 against an order/notice dated 25.04.2025 of the Estate Officer, HSVP, Sonipat, sought only a direction for expeditious decision of the appeal or at least of the stay prayer filed therewith. The petition was disposed of with a direction to respondent No.5 to decide the statutory appeal preferably within one month, but only after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to all concerned, in accordance with law. The Court clarified that it was not commenting on the merits of the appeal or on the maintainability/entertainability of the claim, and reserved liberty to the petitioners to challenge any prejudicial decision in accordance with law.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

125

CWP-13699-2025 Date of Decision: 22.05.2025

ANUJA SINGHAL AND ANOTHER .......PETITONERS Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

.....RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present:Mr. Vikram Singh Punia, Advocate Ms. Yashasvi Rana, Advocate and Mr. Amit Siwach, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana with Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana.

DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at this stage, he restricts his claim to the issuance of a direction to respondent No.5 to expeditiously decide the petitioner’s appeal (Annexure P-23) or at least the prayer for stay filed by the petitioners along with their aforesaid appeal filed under Section 20 of the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran Act, 1977 (For short 1977 Act) to challenge therein the order/notice dated 25.04.2025 passed by the Estate Officer, HSVP, Sonipat.

Learned State counsel has no objection to the acceptance of afore alternative prayer made on behalf of the petitioners.

The afore alternative prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners is found to be reasonable. The learned State counsel has also no objection to its acceptance. Even otherwise a direction to expeditiously

PRINCE SAINI 2025.05.26 05:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-13699-2025 -2-

decide a lis between the parties prejudice none. Rather, an early decision benefits both the parties to the lis .

In the light of above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.5 to take decision, preferably within one month, on the statutory appeal filed by the petitioners to challenge therein the order/notice dated 25.04.2025 passed by the Estate Officer, HSVP, Sonipat but only after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to all concerned, in accordance with law.

Needless to say that in case, the decision taken by respondent No.5 on the petitioners’ aforesaid appeal is prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners, they would be at liberty to challenge the same, in accordance with law.

It is further clarified that by issuing the afore directions, we are not commenting on the merits of the appeal filed by the petitioners or on the maintainability/entertainability of their claim made by them through their

appeal.

[DEEPAK SIBAL]

JUDGE

[LAPITA BANERJI]

22.05.2025 JUDGE Prince

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

PRINCE SAINI 2025.05.26 05:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document