Allowed¶32

Naresh and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Apr 2026CWP/23785/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab and Haryana High Court; writ petition; Covid-19 pandemic; appeal consigned to record room; dismissal for non-prosecution; restoration application dismissed; revision dismissed; District Collector Palwal; opportunity to appear; revival on merits; orders set aside; fresh decision on merits; time-bound disposal within six months; eviction proceedings; Annexure P-9; Annexure P-11; Annexure P-13; CM-18772-CWP-2024 dismissed as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 03.02.2022 (Annexure P-9), 12.03.2024 (Annexure P-11) and 17.07.2024 (Annexure P-13) set aside; District Collector, Palwal (respondent No.3) directed to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law, preferably within six months; writ petition disposed of accordingly and pending applications, if any, disposed of. ¶32

Naresh and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the orders dated 03.02.2022 (Annexure P-9, consigning/dismissing the appeal), 12.03.2024 (Annexure P-11, rejecting restoration) and 17.07.2024 (Annexure P-13, dismissing revision) should be set aside and the District Collector, Palwal directed to decide the matter on merits in a time-bound manner.

¶23

Court's answer

A perusal of the order dated 03.02.2022 (Annexure P-9) shows that the appeal was only consigned to the record room since none had appeared and was not dismissed for non-prosecution; therefore, on the restoration application it ought to have been revived and dealt with on merits.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

The orders dated 03.02.2022 (Annexure P-9), 12.03.2024 (Annexure P-11) and 17.07.2024 (Annexure P-13) are not sustainable in law and are set aside; the District Collector, Palwal (respondent No.3) is to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within six months.

¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition CWP-23785-2024 (O&M), High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (Alka Sarin and Ramesh Chander Dimri JJ.), decided 10.04.2026. During the Covid-19 pandemic the petitioners' appeal before the District Collector, Palwal was listed on 03.02.2022 and consigned to the record room the same day for want of appearance (Annexure P-9); the restoration application was dismissed on 12.03.2024 (Annexure P-11) and the revision thereagainst was dismissed on 17.07.2024 (Annexure P-13) on the ground that the petitioners had remained absent to avoid eviction proceedings. Held: the order of 03.02.2022 records mere consignment of the appeal to the record room, not dismissal for non-prosecution, and on the restoration application the appeal ought to have been revived and dealt with on merits; all three orders were unsustainable and were set aside, and the District Collector, Palwal (respondent No.3) was directed to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law, preferably within six months. Interlocutory application CM-18772-CWP-2024 by the proposed respondent No.8 was dismissed as withdrawn.

¶1

111

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CWP-23785-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision : 10.04.2026

¶4

Naresh & Anr ... Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Haryana & Ors ... Respondent(s)

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI

¶8

Present : Mr. Sukhandeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶9

Mr. Pradeep Prakash Chahar, Sr. DAG Haryana for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶10

Mr. Brijesh Kumar Jangra, Advocate for respondent No.5.

¶11

Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate for respondent Nos.6 and 7.

¶12

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

¶13

CM-18772-CWP-2024

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant-proposed respondent No.8

¶15

seeks permission to withdraw the present application. Permitted to do so.

¶16

CM is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶17

CWP-23785-2024

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, limits his prayer

¶19

in the present writ petition and states that the petitioners would be satisfied if the order dated 03.02.2022 (Annexure P-9) passed by the District Collector,

¶20

YOGESH SHARMA 2026.04.13 12:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶21

- 2-

¶22

CWP-23785-2024

¶23

Palwal, dismissing his appeal for non-prosecution and subsequent orders dated 12.03.2024 (Annexure P-11), whereby his application for restoration was dismissed and order dated 17.07.2024 (Annexure P-13), whereby the revision was dismissed, are set aside and the District Collector, Palwal (respondent No.3 herein) be directed to decide the matter on merits in a timebound manner. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that due to the Pandemic Covid-19, the matter was not taken up for a long time. The appeal was suddenly listed on 03.02.2022 when the counsel for the petitioners missed the same and the said appeal was consigned on the same very day i.e. 03.02.2022. Thereafter, the petitioners had filed an application for restoration on 03.10.2022, which was dismissed vide order dated 12.03.2024 (Annexure P-11). Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred a revision petition which was also dismissed vide order dated 17.07.2024 (Annexure P-13) only on the ground that the petitioners had remained absent from the case only to avoid eviction proceedings and wanted to prolong the matter and that the appeal had rightly been dismissed by the District Collector, Palwal.

¶24

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7 would contend that in case the matter is being remanded for a decision on merits, the same be made time bound.

¶25

Similar contentions have been made by the learned counsel for respondent No.5 and the learned State counsel.

¶26

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶27

In the present case, the petitioners had given a cogent reason that due to the Pandemic Covid-19, the matter was not being taken up and when it was listed on 03.02.2022, without even affording an opportunity to the petitioners to appear, the appeal was consigned vide order dated 03.02.2022

¶28

YOGESH SHARMA 2026.04.13 12:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶29

- 3-

¶30

CWP-23785-2024

¶31

(Annexure P-9). A perusal of the said order reveals that the appeal was only consigned to the record room since none had appeared and was not dismissed for non-prosecution. That being so, on an application filed by the petitioners, the same ought to have been revived and dealt with on merits.

¶32

In view of the above, the orders dated 03.02.2022 (Annexure P- 9), 12.03.2024 (Annexure P-11) and 17.07.2024 (Annexure P-13) are not sustainable in law and are accordingly set aside. The District Collector, Palwal (respondent No.3 herein) would decide the matter afresh in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from today. 9. Disposed off accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

¶33

( ALKA SARIN ) JUDGE

¶34

10.04.2026 ( RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI ) Yogesh Sharma JUDGE

¶35

NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO

¶36

YOGESH SHARMA 2026.04.13 12:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Naresh and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

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

Ajit Vs State of Haryana and Others

Shamsher Sharma Vs State of Haryana

Suresh Kumar and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sarla Devi and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Harveer Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

Ram Dhani Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.