Quashed

Kundan Singh v. Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Jul 2026CWP/518/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside ejectment orders passed against members of a cooperative society on the premise that their land allotment had been cancelled by the State. The Court held that the orders could not be sustained because the State failed to produce the alleged cancellation order despite repeated adjournments. Liberty was granted to respondents to proceed afresh.

What did the court decide?

Impugned ejectment orders set aside; liberty granted to respondents to proceed afresh.

Kundan Singh Vs Deputy Commissioner and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CWP-518-2007 (O&M) and other connected cases

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Date of decision : 27.07.2026

¶5

CWP-518-2007 (O&M)

¶6

Kundan Singh		....Petitioner
	Versus
Deputy Commissioner,	Faridkot and others	...Respondents
Labh Singh	CWP-519-2007 (O&M)	....Petitioner
	Versus
Deputy Commissioner,	Faridkot and others	...Respondents
Chand Singh	CWP-520-2007 (O&M)	....Petitioner
	Versus
Deputy Commissioner,	Faridkot and others	...Respondents
Baldev Singh	CWP-521-2007 (O&M)	....Petitioner
	Versus
Deputy Commissioner,	Faridkot and others	...Respondents
Sukhchain Singh	CWP-522-2007 (O&M)	....Petitioner
	Versus
Deputy Commissioner,	Faridkot and others	...Respondents

¶7

DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.30 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶8

¶9

CWP-518-2007 (O&M) and other connected cases

¶10

CWP-523-2007 (O&M) Baggar Singh ....Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot and others ...Respondents CWP-524-2007 (O&M) Darshan Singh ....Petitioner Versus

¶11

Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot and others ...Respondents

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

¶13

Present : Mr. Sanjeev K. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner (s).

¶14

Mr. H.P.S. Ishar, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

¶15

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

¶16

This is a bunch of writ petitions involving common question of law in the background of similar facts.

¶17

With the consent of both the counsels, CWP No.518 of 2007 is taken as a lead case in order to cull out the facts relevant for the decision of these writ petitions.

¶18

Petitioners are members of Kauni Scheduled Caste Cooperative Land owning Society Limited, Village Kauni, a Co-operative Society registered under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act. 4. Land measuring 469 Kanals was allotted to the Society by the State of Punjab in the year 1956. As per the petitioners, the Society deposited the entire amount in the year 1968 and became owner of the land

¶19

DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.30 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CWP-518-2007 (O&M) and 3 other connected cases

¶21

in question. The petitioner being member of the Society is in cultivating possession of the land measuring 9 Kanals 2 Marlas.

¶22

Society in order to get the land mutated in its name, passed a resolution dated 06.04.1995. An application accompanied by the resolution was presented before the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Faridkot. Mutation was not sanctioned. To the utter shock of the members of the Society, ejectment petition was filed against them under Punjab Public Premises and Land Act on the premise that the land vests in State as the allotment made in favour of the Society stands cancelled.

¶23

Vide impugned orders, the petitioners have been ordered to be

¶24

evicted.

¶25

While issuing notice of motion, this Court on January 15, 2007 observed as under:

¶26

“Learned counsel contends that letter No.176 regarding cancellation of allotment by the Deputy Commissioner in 1965, was not placed on record before the Collector when the order was passed and neither has this been made available to him. The basis for cancellation was the above said letter.

¶27

Notice of motion.

¶28

Mr. C.M. Munjal, Senior Additional Advocate General,

¶29

Punjab, accepts notice.

¶30

Copies of the petitions be supplied. Adjourned to 1.2.2007.”

¶31

The matter was listed on 20.07.2026.

¶32

State Counsel sought instructions to produce order of cancellation of allotment in favour of the Society.

¶33

DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.30 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

CWP-518-2007 (O&M) and 4 other connected cases

¶35

Despite repeated adjournments, State has not been able to produce copy of the order of cancellation of allotment which as per the State was passed by Deputy Commissioner way back in the year 1965.

¶36

In view thereof, this Court finds that the impugned orders passed by the Authorities below have been passed on the premise that the land vests in the Provincial Government after allotment made to the Society was cancelled. The same cannot be sustained and are hereby set aside.

¶37

Liberty is however granted to the respondents to proceed afresh, if so, advised.

¶38

Writ petitions are disposed off accordingly.

¶39

Pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed off.

¶40

A copy of this order be kept on the file of other connected cases.

¶41

July 27, 2026 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶42

DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.30 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Kundan Singh v. Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kundan Singh v. Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gursahib Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Guridal Singh Vs Financial Commissioner Appeal Punjab

Raj Kumar Vs Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur & Ors.

Baldev Singh Vs Financial Commissioner/Appeals-I Pb.Etc

Onkar Singh Vs Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab and Others

Ramotar and Ors. Vs Financial Commissioner Revenue Haryana and Ors.