Rajesh Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC16 May 2025CWP/8902/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP-8902-2025; Punjab & Haryana High Court; tree felling; permission order 20.11.2024 (Annexure P-1); Haryana Land and Preservation Act, 1900 (Punjab Act II of 1900); Section 18 statutory appeal; Collector Gurugram; alternate remedy; relegation to appeal; 15-day filing window; speaking order; no dismissal on limitation alone; interim stay 27.03.2025 continued; 30-day timeline for Collector; writ petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with the petitioner relegated to the statutory appeal under Section 18 before the Collector, Gurugram; appeal filed within 15 days to be decided on merits by a speaking order and not dismissed solely on limitation; interim stay on tree-felling (order dated 27.03.2025) to continue until the Collector decides the appeal; Collector to decide the appeal within 30 days of filing.

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition complaining of large-scale felling of trees pursuant to the order dated 20.11.2024 (Annexure P-1) should be entertained and interfered with on merits, given that a statutory appeal under Section 18 of the Haryana Land and Preservation Act, 1900 before the Collector was available but not availed by the petitioner. +1 more

¶¶14

Court's answer

The Court declines to interfere in the matter on merits and relegates the petitioner to avail the remedy of statutory appeal before the Collector, Gurugram; if such an appeal is filed within 15 days, it shall be considered and decided on merits by passing a speaking order, without being dismissed alone on limitation.

¶¶18

Ratio / Principle

The interim stay of tree-felling ordered by this Court on 27.03.2025 shall continue to remain in operation until the Collector decides the appeal.

¶¶19

Key takeaways

The Collector is directed to decide the appeal within 30 days from the date of its filing, in accordance with law and without being influenced by this order.ratio¶¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Residents of a village challenged, by writ petition, the felling of a large number of trees pursuant to an order dated 20.11.2024 (Annexure P-1) granting permission to fell trees under the Haryana Land and Preservation Act, 1900 (Punjab Act II of 1900). Noting, undisputed by rival counsel, that an appeal against Annexure P-1 lay under Section 18 of the said Act before the Collector and had not been availed, and considering the pendency of a large number of cases, the Court (Sheel Nagu, CJ, oral) declined interference on merits and relegated the petitioner to the statutory appeal before the Collector, Gurugram, with a 15-day filing window within which the appeal would be decided on merits by a speaking order and not dismissed solely on limitation. The Court's earlier stay of tree-felling dated 27.03.2025 was directed to remain in operation until the Collector decided the appeal, and the Collector was directed to decide the appeal within 30 days of filing in accordance with law, uninfluenced by this order. Petition disposed of.

¶1

¶2

CWP-8902-2025 (O&M)

¶3

108

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

CWP-8902-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.05.2025

¶6

RAJESH KUMAR .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ..Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

¶10

Present: Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Mr. Abhinav Sood, Advocate and Mr. Nitesh Jhajhria, Advocate for respondent No.12.

¶12

SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE, (ORAL)

¶13

This petition has been filed by the residents of the concerned village and the grievance raised is that a large number of trees have been felled pursuant to the order dated 20.11.2024 (Annexure P-1).

¶14

The aforesaid order granting permission to fell trees has been passed under the Haryana Land and Preservation Act, 1900 (Punjab Act II of 1900). It is also not disputed by the learned counsel for rival parties that an appeal lies against Annexure P-1 under Section 18 of the said Act before the Collector, which has not been availed by the petitioner.

¶15

JATIN 2025.05.19 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

¶17

CWP-8902-2025 (O&M)

¶18

In view of the above, and considering that a large number of cases are pending before this Court, this Court declines to interfere in the matter on merits and relegates the petitioner to avail the remedy of statutory appeal before the Collector, Gurugram. If such an appeal is filed within a period of 15 days from today, the same shall be considered and decided on merits by passing a speaking order, without being dismissed alone on limitation.

¶19

Since this Court had stayed the felling of trees vide order dated 27.03.2025 which shall continue to remain in operation until the Collector decides the appeal. The Collector is directed to decide the appeal within a period of 30 days from the date of its filing, in accordance with law without being influenced by this order.

¶20

Petition stands disposed of.

¶21

(SHEEL NAGU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶22

16.05.2025 Jasmine Kaur		(SU	MEET GOEL) JUDGE
	Whether speaking/reasoned	Yes	No
	Whether reportable	Yes	No

¶23

JATIN 2025.05.19 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Rajesh Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

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

M/S Gurinder Singh Contractor and Another Vs State of Punjab and Another

Court on Its Own Motion Vs State of Punjab

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Mohinder Singh Vs High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Onkar Nath and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Satnam Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.