Pankaj Periwal v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Jul 2026CWP/11933/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP-11933-2026, Punjab & Haryana HC (07.07.2026, Tribhuvan Dahiya J): mandamus for decision on encroachment representations refused; police-site inquiry found intervenor Julaisri Devi in possession of auction-purchased Ludhiana plot (sale deed 17.02.2020, not forged); petition disposed with liberty to seek lawful remedies on possession; writ of mandamus; encroachment; Tax Recovery Officer certificate of sale; GPA sale disputed.

What did the court decide?

No mandamus or direction issued on the representations; petitioner granted liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law regarding possession of the plot in question. ¶¶23

Pankaj Periwal Vs State of Punjab and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No mandamus or direction issued on the representations; petitioner granted liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law regarding possession of the plot in question.

¶¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation dated 03.01.2021 (Annexure P-3) and applications/representations dated 16.06.2023 and 20.06.2023 (Annexure P-8) pertaining to alleged illegal encroachment upon his plot. +1 more

¶¶11

Court's answer

No direction is required to be issued by this Court regarding the applications/representations statedly submitted by the petitioner with regard to the alleged encroachment over the plot in question.

¶¶22

Ratio / Principle

Although receipt of the representations was denied by the respondent in the affidavit, an inquiry was already conducted to ascertain the facts, and it was found that Julaisri Devi is in possession of the plot, where she has raised construction as well; on these facts the Court declined to intervene on the encroachment representations.

¶¶22

Key takeaways

The petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedies in accordance with law regarding possession of the plot in question.ratio¶¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ of mandamus sought directing respondents to decide the petitioner's representations (dated 03.01.2021, 16.06.2023 and 20.06.2023) alleging illegal encroachment upon a plot (plot no.8, 150 sq. yds., out of khasra no.15/6, Ludhiana) purchased by the petitioner's father at a public auction held on 31.03.1994 (certificate of sale dated 25.11.1994), who died on 23.09.2002 leaving the petitioner as owner. The plot was allegedly sold during the Covid19 pandemic by one Vidyawanti through GPA holder Davinder Singh to Julaisri Devi vide sale deed dated 17.02.2020, which the petitioner called fraudulent, citing Vidyawanti's affidavit dated 30.03.2021 disowning ownership. Pursuant to an earlier order of the Court, the State filed the affidavit of the ACP (North), Ludhiana dated 06.07.2026 reporting an inquiry by ASI Balkar Singh, who found Julaisri Devi owner-in-possession, the sale deed not forged, construction raised and residence established, so possession could not be delivered to the petitioner. Held: no direction required on the representations; petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue remedies in accordance with law regarding possession. (Tribhuvan Dahiya, J., oral; decided 07.07.2026.)

¶1

CWP-11933-2026 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Sr. No.107 CWP-11933-2026 Date of Decision: 07.07.2026

¶4

Pankaj Periwal .... Petitioner Versus

¶5

State of Punjab and others ... Respondents

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA

¶7

Present: Mr. Mohit Uppal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Vikas Arora, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

¶9

Mr. Abhimanyu Jairath, Advocate, for the intervenor – Julaisri Devi.

¶10

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL)

¶11

The petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the petitioner’s representation dated 03.01.2021, Annexure P-3, and also the applications/representations dated 16.06.2023 and 20.06.2023, Annexure P-8, which pertain to allegations regarding illegal encroachment upon a plot of land owned by him.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner’s father was declared purchaser of property by public auction held on 31.03.1994, viz., plot no.8 measuring 150 square yards out of khasra no.15/6, V. Taraf Karabara – 161 Baladurkey Road, Ludhiana. A certificate of sale of immovable property to that effect was issued by Tax Recovery Officer, Ludhiana, dated 25.11.1994, Annexure P-1. He died on 23.09.2002, and the petitioner became owner of the plot. It is alleged that during Covid19 pandemic the plot was encroached upon by certain persons and, in fact, it was sold by one Vidyawanti through General Power of Attorney holder

¶13

MANINDER 2026.07.09 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶14

CWP-11933-2026 2

¶15

Davinder Singh in favour of Julaisri Devi, vide sale deed dated 17.02.2020, Annexure P-4. This is a fraudulent transaction as the said lady has given an affidavit dated 30.03.2021, Annexure P-5, that the plot in question does not belong to her.

¶16

Learned State counsel has filed an affidavit of Mr. Kikar Singh, PPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police (North), Ludhiana, dated 06.07.2026, which is retained on the case file as Annexure ‘A’. Referring to the same, he submits that an ASI was deputed to ascertain factual position on site. He found that some other person is owner-in-possession of the plot in question and has raised construction over it as well. These facts have been mentioned in para 3 of the affidavit, which reads as under:

¶17

That in compliance with the above noted order of this Hon’ble Court, it is respectfully submitted that ASI Balkar Singh of P.S. Jodhewal, Ludhiana was deputed to know the factual and legal position at the property and also if the petitioner could be delivered possession of the property as was advised by this Hon’ble Court. Accordingly the said ASI Balkar Singh visited the property and joined the opposite party of the petitioner namely Julaisri Devi in inquiry during which she stated that she had purchased the plot in question from Davinder Singh vide Sale Deed dated 17.02.2020 (Annexure P-4). The said sale deed is not a forged document. The possession of the said plot was delivered to her by the said vendor in the year 1999 and thereafter the said Julaisri Devi raised construction over the said 2021, installed electricity meter in her name and now she alongwith her family members is residing in the property. Therefore, possession of the said property could not be delivered to the petitioner as was advised by this Hon’ble Court. A copy of the said statement of Julaisri Devi is annexed hereto as Annexure R-1/T.

¶18

¶19

Heard.

¶20

MANINDER 2026.07.09 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶21

CWP-11933-2026 3

¶22

In view of the facts brought on record, as referred to above, no direction is required to be issued by this Court regarding applications/representations statedly submitted by the petitioner with regard to alleged encroachment over the plot in question. Although the receipt of any such representation has been denied by the respondent in the affidavit, nevertheless an inquiry has already been conducted, as aforementioned, to ascertain the facts and it has been found that Julaisri Devi is in possession over the plot in question, where she has raised construction as well.

¶23

The petition is, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedies in accordance with law regarding possession of the plot in question.

¶24

(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE

¶25

07.07.2026 Maninder Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶26

MANINDER 2026.07.09 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Petitioner's father was declared purchaser of plot no.8 measuring 150 square yards out of khasra no.15/6, V. Taraf Karabara – 161 Baladurkey Road, Ludhiana, at a public auction held on 31.03.1994.¶¶12
Prior proceeding
Certificate of sale of immovable property issued by the Tax Recovery Officer, Ludhiana, dated 25.11.1994 (Annexure P-1).¶¶12
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's father died on 23.09.2002, whereupon the petitioner became owner of the plot.¶¶12
Prior proceeding
Allegation that during the Covid19 pandemic the plot was encroached upon and sold by one Vidyawanti through her General Power of Attorney holder.¶¶12
Prior proceeding
Sale deed dated 17.02.2020 (Annexure P-4) executed by GPA holder Davinder Singh in favour of Julaisri Devi; petitioner alleges it is a fraudulent transaction.¶¶15
Prior proceeding
Affidavit dated 30.03.2021 (Annexure P-5) of Vidyawanti stating the plot does not belong to her, relied on by the petitioner to allege fraud.¶¶15
Prior proceeding
Petitioner submitted a representation dated 03.01.2021 (Annexure P-3) and applications/representations dated 16.06.2023 and 20.06.2023 (Annexure P-8) regarding the alleged illegal encroachment; non-decision thereon is the grievance sought to be remedied via mandamus.¶¶11
Prior proceeding
In compliance with an earlier order of this Court, affidavit of Mr. Kikar Singh, PPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police (North), Ludhiana, dated 06.07.2026, retained on the case file as Annexure 'A', reporting a site inquiry by ASI Balkar Singh of P.S. Jodhewal, Ludhiana.¶¶16
Prior proceeding
Site inquiry finding: some other person is owner-in-possession of the plot and has raised construction over it.¶¶16
Prior proceeding
Per the affidavit, ASI Balkar Singh was deputed to ascertain the factual and legal position and whether possession could be delivered to the petitioner pursuant to the Court's advice.¶¶17
Prior proceeding
Inquiry record: Julaisri Devi stated she purchased the plot from Davinder Singh vide sale deed dated 17.02.2020 (Annexure P-4); the sale deed is stated to be not forged; she raised construction, installed an electricity meter and resides there with her family.¶¶17
Prior proceeding
Inquiry conclusion: possession of the property could not be delivered to the petitioner as earlier advised by the Court.¶¶17

Pankaj Periwal v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Periwal v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajinder Singh Tanwar Vs State of Haryana and Others

A Sushmita Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sutinder Singh Chandel Vs Hdfc Bank Limited and Another

Dharambir Singh Dhankar Vs Permanent Lok Adalat and Anr.

Indusind Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited Vs Aruna Sachdeva and Others

Parven Garg Vs State of Haryana Others