Harpal Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

¶1

CWP-19528-2026 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

*******

¶4

CWP-19528-2026 Date of decision : 10.07.2026

¶5

Harpal Singh and others

¶6

... Petitioners

¶7

Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present: Mr.Diwan S. Adlakha, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Pradeep Prakash Chahar, Addl.A.G. Haryana. Mr.G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate for respondent no.5.

¶8

VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)

¶9

In the present writ petition, following prayers have been made:- “Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of an appropriate Order, Directions or Writ, especially in the nature of: - CERTIORARI, thereby quashing the impugned order dated 19.05.2026 (certified copy prepared on 10.06.2026) (Annexure P-10) passed by the Learned Divisional Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala (Respondent No. 2) whereby the interim stay order granted in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 08.04.2026 (Annexure P-9) has been vacated in a hasty and arbitrary manner, despite the pendency of the revision petition challenging the order dated 24.12.2025 (Annexure P-6) with regard to dismissal of stay application; as well as statutory appeal challenging

¶10

DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.07.13 10:11 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment

¶11

CWP-19528-2026 2

¶12

ejectment order dated 15.10.2025 (Annexure P-4) filed before the Ld. Collector Yamuna Nagar, being illegal, unjust, arbitrary, non-speaking, cryptic, unconstitutional, against the well-established precedent of law on the point; AND

¶13

MANDAMUS, thereby directing the Respondents not to dispossess the petitioners or to take the physical possession of the land in dispute, in view of the order dated 15.10.2025 (Annexure P-4), during the pendency of the statutory remedies of appeal and revision availed by the petitioners; and also the petition under section 13-A of Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961 qua title of the land in dispute;

¶14

AND

¶15

It is further prayed that during the pendency of the writ petition, the operation of the impugned order dated 19.05.2026 (Annexure P-10) and the original ejectment order dated 15.10.2025 (Annexure P-4) and any consequent dispossession of the petitioners from the land in question, may kindly be stayed, in the interest of justice.

¶16

ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.”

¶17

On 01.07.2026, this Court was pleased to pass the following

¶18

order:-

¶19

“Present: Mr. Diwan S. Adlakha, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶20

Mr. Pradeep Prakash Chahar, Addl. A.G. Haryana.

¶21

****

¶22

Inter alia contends that in the present case, respondent No.5-Gram Panchayat had initiated proceedings under Section 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 for ejectment of the petitioners from land comprised in “Khewat/Khatauni No.167/251, Khasra No.36(9-9), 37(8-0) Min South, measuring 17 kanals 09 marlas, situated in Mauza Baroli Majra, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamunanagar”. It is submitted that vide order dated 15.10.2025, the said petition was allowed and the order of eviction was passed on the total area of land measuring 62 kanals 3 marlas which included the land which

¶23

DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.07.13 10:11 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment

¶24

CWP-19528-2026 3

¶25

was in possession of the petitioners to the extent of 17 kanals 9 marlas. It is submitted that against the said order, an appeal was filed by the petitioners, in which, the application for stay was dismissed vide order dated 24.12.2025 but the appeal is still pending adjudication. It is submitted that since the right of appeal would have been seriously prejudiced in view of order dated 24.12.2025 thus, the petitioners had filed a revision petition against the order dated 24.12.2025 before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala and the said Commissioner, vide order dated 06.01.2026 (Annexure P-9) was pleased to issue notice and was also pleased to stay the execution of the order dated 15.10.2025. It is further submitted that while doing so, the Commissioner had observed that there was prima facie force in the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioners. It is submitted that however, vide order dated 19.05.2026, without giving any reasons, the said stay order has been vacated, although the revision is still pending. It is submitted that since the first appeal filed by the petitioners is pending and revision petition filed by the petitioners on the aspect of stay is also pending thus, by virtue of the impugned order, the petitioners have been left remediless as in case the order dated 15.10.2025 is executed then irreparable loss would be caused to the petitioners. It is submitted that appeal of the petitioners which is pending before the District Collector, Yamuna Nagar should be ordered to be decided and till the time the same is not done, the possession of the petitioners be protected.

¶26

Notice of motion.

¶27

Mr. Pradeep Prakash Chahar, Addl. A.G. Haryana, appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 and waives service.

¶28

Let notice be issued to respondent No.5 for 10.07.2026.

¶29

To be taken up in the urgent list.

¶30

Liberty is granted to the petitioners to serve respondent

¶31

No.5 through dasti process also.

¶32

Till the next date of hearing, status quo with respect to possession of land measuring 17 kanals 9 marlas as detailed in para 2 of the petition, which has also been reproduced hereinabove would be maintained.

¶33

DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.07.13 10:11 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment

¶34

CWP-19528-2026 4

¶35

The present order would not be construed as being interim order with respect to the entire land measuring 62 kanals 3 marlas and is only with respect to land measuring 17 kanals 9 marlas out of the land measuring 62 kanals 3 marlas.

¶36

01.07.2026”

¶37

Learned counsel for respondent no.5-Gram Panchayat has submitted that in pursuance of the order dated 19.05.2026, the Gram Panchayat has taken the possession on 11.06.2026 and further leased the property to Rafakat and Rakesh.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as far as the land measuring 17 kanal 9 marla is concerned, the petitioners are still in possession of 9 kanal of land out of the total land measuring 17 kanal 9 marla which land is comprising the khasra no.36. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the abovesaid persons to whom the property allegedly has been given is real uncle of the husband of Sarpanch.

¶39

The fact that the petitioners are in possession of 9 kanal of land is also disputed by the learned counsel for respondent no.5.

¶40

During the course of arguments, it has been pointed out that the first appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dated 15.10.2025 is pending for 29.07.2026 and the service in the said case is complete and on a pointed query raised by this Court, all counsel have fairly submitted that they will argue the appeal on the next date of hearing.

¶41

In view of the above said facts and circumstances and also on

¶42

DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.07.13 10:11 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment

¶43

CWP-19528-2026 5

¶44

the basis of consensus, the present writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

¶45

i) The counsel for the petitioners as well as the contesting respondent would be ready to argue the first appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dated 15.10.2025 on the next date of hearing or any other date which respondent no.3 directs. Respondent no.3 is directed to decide the first appeal as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the next date of hearing.

¶46

ii) Till the time, the appeal is decided, the parties are directed to maintain status quo with respect to possession as it existed on 01.07.2026. The grant and continuance of the said order should not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and it would be open to both the parties to raise all pleas in accordance with law before respondent no.3, who would decide the same independently in accordance with law.

¶47

iii) This Court has not opined as to who actually is in possession of the property and it would be open to either of the parties to seek appropriate remedy after the decision of the appeal by respondent no.3-Collector.

¶48

iv) In view of the present order passed, it has been jointly agreed that the revision petition filed by petitioners which was only against the rejection of the stay application would be

¶49

DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.07.13 10:11 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment

¶50

CWP-19528-2026 6

¶51

rendered infrucutous and accordingly, it would be open to either of the parties to inform the revisional authority about the fact that the said revision petition has been rendered infructuous and on the parties doing so, the Commissioner will dispose of the said case as having been rendered infructuous.

¶52

(VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE

¶53

(SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE

¶54

July 10, 2026.

¶55

Davinder Kumar

¶56

Whether speaking / reasoned Whether reportable

¶57

Yes/No Yes/No