Disposed¶23

Gurbachan Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Dec 2025CWP/38200/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP-38200-2025; Gurbachan Singh v. State of Punjab; Punjab and Haryana High Court; Kuldeep Tiwari, J.; decision 24.12.2025; interim order 19.12.2025; Right to Information Act, 2005; demarcation report; demarcation on 25.06.2020; Kanungo; Naib Tehsildar Jagtar Singh; Tehsildar; information denied; writ petition closed; liberty to pursue alternative statutory remedies; disposed of accordingly; Sahil R. Bakshi A.A.G. Punjab; Bhavyadeep Walia advocate.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed, with liberty reserved to the petitioners to take recourse to alternative available statutory remedy(ies) for redressal of their grievance, if any survives. ¶23

Gurbachan Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition closed, with liberty reserved to the petitioners to take recourse to alternative available statutory remedy(ies) for redressal of their grievance, if any survives.

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether demarcation was conducted on 25.06.2020 by the Kanungo concerned, as claimed by the petitioners, this being material to their grievance that a copy of the demarcation report sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005 was denied.

¶14

Court's answer

In view of the State counsel's submission, on instructions from Mr. Jagtar Singh, Naib Tehsildar, that no demarcation, as claimed by the petitioners, was conducted on 25.06.2020 by the Kanungo concerned, no further directions are required to be passed.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The instant writ petition is closed.

¶22

Key takeaways

Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to take recourse to alternative available statutory remedy(ies) for redressal of their grievance, if any survives.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Kuldeep Tiwari, J., oral) - CWP-38200-2025, Gurbachan Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors., decided December 24, 2025. The writ petition challenged denial of a copy of a demarcation report allegedly pertaining to demarcation carried out on 25.06.2020, sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the refusal resting on the premise that the demarcation report had not been submitted to the Tehsildar concerned. By order dated 19.12.2025 the Court had directed the State to ascertain whether demarcation was conducted on 25.06.2020 by the Kanungo concerned and, if so, to place the report on record. On instructions from Mr. Jagtar Singh, Naib Tehsildar, State counsel submitted that no such demarcation was conducted. Holding that no further directions were required, the Court closed the writ petition, reserving liberty to the petitioners to pursue alternative available statutory remedies, if any grievance survived. Disposed of accordingly.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

103 CWP-38200-2025 Date of Decision : December 24, 2025

¶3

GURBACHAN SINGH AND ANR. -PETITIONERS

¶4

V/S

¶5

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

¶6

-RESPONDENTS

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

¶8

Present: Mr. Bhavyadeep Walia, Advocate (Through V.C.) for the petitioners.

¶9

Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, A.A.G., Punjab.

¶10

¶11

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

¶12

On the previous date of hearing, i.e. 19.12.2025, this Court passed the following order:-

¶13

“1. The order impugned in the present writ petition has been assailed on the ground that the requested information was denied on the premise that the demarcation report had not been submitted to the Tehsildar concerned. The grievance of the petitioners, however, is that the demarcation was duly carried out on 25.06.2020 and a copy of the said demarcation report was sought by them under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

¶14

2. At this stage, without issuance of notice, learned State counsel is directed to have instructions from the authority concerned and to apprise this Court on the next date of hearing as to whether demarcation was conducted on 25.06.2020 by the Kanungo concerned. In the event it is found that such demarcation was conducted, the corresponding report shall be placed on record on the next date of hearing.

¶15

3. List on 24.12.2025.”

¶16

¶17

Today, learned State counsel, on instructions received from

¶18

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.12.24 14:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶19

¶20

CWP-38200-2025

¶21

Mr. Jagtar Singh, Naib Tehsildar, submits that no demarcation, as claimed by the petitioners, was conducted on 25.06.2020 by the Kanungo concerned.

¶22

In view of the above made submission, no further directions are required to be passed. The instant writ petition is closed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to take recourse to alternative available statutory remedy(ies) for redressal of their grievance, if any survives.

¶23

4. Disposed of accordingly.

¶24

December	24, 2025	(KU	LDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE
devinder
	Whether speaking/reasoned	:	Yes/No
	Whether Reportable	:	Yes/No

¶25

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.12.24 14:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Gurbachan Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurbachan Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prime Proteins Ltd. Vs P.O. Labour Court Bathinda and Anr.

Ramesh Chander Bawa Vs the Presiding Officer and Anr.

Renuka Vs the Registrar General and Others

Pushappreet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

M/S Chaman Lal Bhalla & Co. Vs Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Amritsar & Anr.

State of Haryana Vs Dharambir etc.