Vijaypal Alias Vijay and Others Vs State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Vijaypal Alias Vijay and Others Vs State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Permission to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to file a civil suit in accordance with law; if such a suit is filed, the Civil Court is to consider it independent of the observations made in the impugned order, and it would be open to all parties to raise all pleas in accordance with law, to be decided independently by the Civil Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to file a civil suit in accordance with law, with the observations made in the impugned order not coming in the way of such suit and the Civil Court deciding it independently in accordance with law. +1 more

Court's answer

The petitioners are permitted to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to file a civil suit in accordance with law.

Ratio / Principle

In case any such civil suit is filed, the same would be considered by the Civil Court independent of the observations made in the impugned order.

Key takeaways

In case such a suit is filed, it would be open to all the parties to raise all pleas in accordance with law, which the Civil Court would decide independently in accordance with law.ratio¶¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India by Vijaypal alias Vijay and others against State of Haryana and others, seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 17.03.2021 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent no.2, dismissing the petitioners' application dated 26.09.2019 (Annexure P-2) under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. State counsel pointed out a concurrent finding that the petitioners were not the owners of the property at the time of consolidation, having purchased it, as per their case, in 1979, and therefore lacked the right to file the Section 42 application. Counsel for the petitioners accordingly sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a civil suit, requesting that the observations in the impugned order should not come in the way of such suit; State counsel raised no objection, submitting that if impleaded the State be at liberty to raise all available pleas. The Court permitted withdrawal with such liberty, held that any such civil suit would be considered by the Civil Court independent of the observations in the impugned order (the petitioners having been non-suited on the ground that the Section 42 application was not maintainable for subsequent purchasers), and held that all parties would be open to raise pleas which the Civil Court would decide independently in accordance with law. Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikas Bahl (oral judgment) and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhas Mehla; decided 08.07.2026.

CWP-5966-2025 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

*******

CWP-5966-2025 Date of decision : 08.07.2026

Vijaypal alias Vijay and others

... Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others

... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA

Present: Mr.Devender Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.

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

VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)

This is a Civil Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 17.03.2021 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent no.2 vide which the application dated 26.09.2019 (Annexure P- 2) filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.

Learned State counsel at the outset has pointed out that it has been concurrently found that the petitioners were not the owners of the property at the time of consolidation and as per their case, they have purchased the same in the year 1979. It is submitted that in the said circumstances, it was correctly observed that the petitioners did not have the

DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.07.09 14:17 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment

CWP-5966-2025 2

right to file an application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the same, the petitioners be permitted to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to file a civil suit in accordance with law but has submitted that the observations made in the impugned order should not come in the way of the said civil suit and that the Civil Court be directed to decide the same independently, in accordance with law.

Learned State counsel has submitted that he has no objection to the said course of action and has further submitted that in case any such civil suit is filed and the State is also made a party, then, liberty be granted to the State to raise all pleas as are available to them.

Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances and the fair stand taken on behalf of the petitioners as well as the respondent-State, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to file a civil suit in accordance with law.

In case any such civil suit is filed, the same would be considered by the Civil Court independent of the observations made in the impugned order, as the petitioners have been non-suited on the ground that the application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 is not maintainable on behalf of the petitioners who are subsequent purchasers, in accordance with law. In case any such suit is filed, it would be open to all

DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.07.09 14:17 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment

CWP-5966-2025 3

the parties to raise all pleas in accordance with law, which the Civil Court would decide independently in accordance with law.

(VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE

(SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE

July 08, 2026.

Davinder Kumar

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

DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.07.09 14:17 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment