Disposed¶26

Prateek Lall and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Jul 2026CWP/25283/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab and Haryana High Court; CWP-25283-2017; Prateek Lall v. State of Haryana; writ of mandamus; Cooperative House Building Society; religious building site plan 0.20 acres; Gurdwara illegal construction removal; Gurdwara Guru Nanak Dev Singh Sabha Yamuna Enclave Panipat; non-impleadation of necessary party; Director Town and Country Planning withdrawal of approval 16.05.2017 Annexure R-5; connected petition COCP2365-2018; prayer for protection of life and liberty not pressed; petition disposed of 14.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

None; the petition was disposed of without any direction, the first prayer having been withdrawn and the remaining prayers not entertained. ¶26

Prateek Lall and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the petition was disposed of without any direction, the first prayer having been withdrawn and the remaining prayers not entertained.

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing respondents no.6 to 8 to protect the petitioners' life and liberty, said to be in danger at the hands of respondent no.5/Cooperative House Building Society and respondents no.9 to 11/office bearers of the society (prayer subsequently not pressed). +2 more

¶16

Court's answer

Learned counsel for the petitioners did not press the first prayer (protection of life and liberty), as the danger to the petitioners' life and liberty no longer subsists.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Taking into account that the approval for the religious building in the Society had already been withdrawn vide order dated 16.05.2017, the Court proceeded to dispose of the petition without issuing any further direction on the religious-building/site-plan prayer.

¶7

Key takeaways

The prayer to direct removal of the illegal construction of the Gurdwara cannot be entertained in the absence of the Sabha, which has statedly started the construction, being a party to the petition.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP-25283-2017, decided 14.07.2026 (High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Tribhuvan Dahiya, J.) — Writ petition by Prateek Lall and others sought mandamus (i) for protection of their life and liberty against respondent no.5/Cooperative House Building Society and its office bearers (respondents no.9 to 11); (ii) to respondents no.2, 3 and 5 to shift the area earmarked 'religious building' under the Society's approved site plan, allegedly below the 0.20-acre minimum; and (iii) to respondents no.2 to 8 to remove the illegal installation/construction of a Gurdwara. Counsel did not press the first prayer, the danger having ceased. The Court noted that approval for the religious building had already been withdrawn vide order dated 16.05.2017 of respondent no.2/Director, Town and Country Planning (Annexure R-5), and held that the removal prayer could not be entertained because Gurdwara Guru Nanak Dev Singh Sabha, Yamuna Enclave, Panipat ('Sabha') — statedly undertaking the construction per letter dated 18.11.2017 in connected petition COCP2365-2018 — was not impleaded. Petition disposed of without directions.

¶1

CWP-25283-2017

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Serial No.210

¶5

CWP-25283-2017 Decided on:14.07.2026

¶6

Prateek Lall and others . . . Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Haryana and others . . . Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA

¶10

Present: Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate and Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate for petitioners no.1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 13 to 15.

¶11

None for remaining petitioners.

¶12

Ms. Ruchi Sekhri, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

¶13

Mr. Rupinder Singh Khosla, Senior Advocate with Mr. Yogender Verma, Advocate for respondents no.5 and 9.

¶14

Mr. Premjit Singh Hundal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jasjeet Singh Brar Advocate for respondents no.10 and11.

¶15

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J.(ORAL)

¶16

The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents no.6 to 8 to protect the petitioners’ life and liberty which is in danger at the hands of respondent no.5/Cooperative House Building Society and respondents no.9 to 11/office bearers of the society.

¶17

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners does not press his first prayer as danger to the petitioners’ life and liberty no longer subsists.

¶18

Further, a prayer has been made seeking a writ of mandamus

¶19

MEHAK HURIA directing the respondents no.2, 3 and 5 to shift the area earmarked as 2026.07.17 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶20

CWP-25283-2017 -2-

¶21

‘religious building’ under the approved site plan of the Society, as the same is not as per minimum specifications/requirement of 0.20 acres. Also, a direction has been sought to respondents no.2 to 8 to remove the illegal installation/construction of a Gurdwara on the site in question.

¶22

Learned State counsel contended that approval for the religious building at the site under the sanctioned plan of the Society has already been withdrawn vide order dated 16.05.2017 passed by respondent no.2/Director, Town and Country Planning, Annexure R-5.

¶23

Learned counsel for respondents no.5 and 9 submits that the alleged construction of Gurdwara was being undertaken by Gurdwara Guru Nanak Dev Singh Sabha, Yamuna Enclave, Panipat ( for short, ‘Sabha’), as apparent from the letter dated 18.11.2017 in the connected petition, COCP2365-2018. But the Sabha has not been impleaded as a party to the petition.

¶24

Heard.

¶25

Considering the facts aforementioned, it is apparent that the approval for religious building in the Society has already been withdrawn vide order dated 16.05.2017. Further, the prayer to direct removal of illegal construction of the Gurdwara cannot be entertained in the absence of the Sabha, which has statedly started the construction, being a party to the petition.

¶26

In view thereof, the petition stands disposed of.

¶27

(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) 14.07.2026 JUDGE

¶28

Mehak

¶29

Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No

¶30

MEHAK HURIA 2026.07.17 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

Prateek Lall and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prateek Lall and Others 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A Sharmila Vs the State of Haryana through Its Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana and Others

Srs Pearl Unity Sec 5 Palwal Rwa Vs State of Haryana and Others

Daljit Singh Dhaliwal Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Others

Parteek Lall and Anr. Vs A.K. Singh and Ors.

Amneet Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Saraswati Vs State of Haryana and Anr.