Dismissed¶16

Manpreet Kaur and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Mar 2026CWP/8273/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP-8273-2026 (O&M); Manpreet Kaur v. State of Haryana; transfer of consolidation case; DRO-cum-Settlement Officer, Karnal; Deputy Commissioner Karnal; Director Consolidation Department Haryana; Section 21(3) East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1948; Randhir Singh v. Tehsildar-cum-Consolidation Officer; Annexure P-10; Annexure P-11; apprehension of bias; Article 226/227; writ of certiorari and mandamus; writ petition dismissed; pending applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

In the application (Annexure P-10) there was no cogent reason forthcoming as to why the matter should be transferred, and no case of bias was made out. ¶16

Manpreet Kaur and Ors. Vs State of Haryana… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

123

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CWP-8273-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision : 18.03.2026

¶4

Manpreet Kaur & Ors ... Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana & Ors ... Respondent(s)

¶5

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

¶6

Present : Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶7

Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana.

¶8

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

¶9

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari , mandamus or in any other nature quashing the order dated 01.01.2026 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Director, Consolidation Department, Haryana and to transfer the case from DRO-cum-Settlement Officer, Karnal to any other Officer, in the matter under Section 21(3) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 titled as “Randhir Singh Vs. Tehsildar-cum-Consolidation Officer & Ors.” .

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners have an apprehension that the DRO without examining the facts of the case was determined to cancel the registry by ignoring the Rules. Learned counsel has further contended that several matters are pending for the last 7- 8 years in the Court of DRO-cum-Settlement Officer and no hearing has taken

¶11

YOGESH SHARMA 2026.03.19 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Chandigarh

¶12

CWP-8273-2026 (O&M)

¶13

¶14

place and dates are being given, whereas in their case short dates are being given. An application was filed before the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal for transferring the case to the DRO-cum-Settlement Officer of any other district. The said application has been rejected vide order dated 01.01.2026 (Annexure P-11) by directing that the matter would be heard by the same Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶15

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶16

In the application (Annexure P-10) there is no cogent reason forthcoming as to why the matter be transferred. No case of bias is also made out. Merely on apprehensions expressed by the petitioners the matter cannot be transferred. In view thereof, no ground is made out to entertain the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if

¶17

any, also stand disposed off.

¶18

( ALKA SARIN ) JUDGE

¶19

( RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI ) 18.03.2026 JUDGE

¶20

Yogesh Sharma

¶21

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

¶22

YOGESH SHARMA 2026.03.19 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Chandigarh