Balwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others

CWP-9831-2026 (O&M) -1-
106
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
*
CWP-9831-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 08.09.2026
Balwinder Singh and others .... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVINDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. A.D.S. Sukhija, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Swarn Tiwana, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Shruti, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate
for respondents No.3 & 4.

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI J. , (ORAL)
1. The present writ petition has been filed by 21 petitioners under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India who are carrying on their business
pertaining to the building of bus and truck bodies, assailing the inaction of
the respondent/State in not having allotted 9 acres of land to them and
seeking a direction to the respondent/State to allot them 9 acres of land at
fair market value in accordance with the judgment dated 12.12.1991 passed
by Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide Annexure P-1.
2. Mr. A.D.S. Sukhija, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners assisted by Mr. Swarn Tiwana, Advocate, submitted
the chronological facts of the case from the year 1991 onwards, which are as
follows:-
BHUMIKA BHATI
2026.09.11 13:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

CWP-9831-2026 (O&M) -2-
(i). Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioners have
been carrying on their business of building bus and truck
bodies for a considerably long period of time, but the land
on which they were carrying on such business was acquired
by the State of Punjab under the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, for setting up of a grain market.
Challenge was laid to the aforesaid acquisition, however,
the acquisition itself was upheld till the matter was
considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No.4129 of 1985, decided on 12.12.1991, vide Annexure P-
1. Before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was so stated on
behalf of the State that they have no objection to allotting 9
acres of land to the present petitioners but they have to pay
the ruling market price. In turn, the petitioners stated that
they were prepared to pay the price that was prevalent on
the date of the earlier order of Hon’ble Supreme Court
passed on 29.03.1990. The aforesaid submission was
accepted by Hon’ble Supreme Court, which directed the
State to allot 9 acres of land to the petitioners and further
directed that the petitioners shall pay the price of such land
at market rates as prevalent on 29.03.1990 and that the
market price shall be determined by the Financial
Commissioner (Development), Punjab. It was further
directed that the price so determined by the Financial
Commissioner (Development), Punjab shall be accepted as
final and binding on the petitioners. It was further made
BHUMIKA BHATI
2026.09.11 13:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

CWP-9831-2026 (O&M) -3-
clear by Hon’ble Supreme Court that if the petitioners are
still in occupation of the premises, they shall not be evicted
for three months from the date of allotment of 9 acres of
land. The aforesaid order dated 12.12.1991 passed by
Hon’ble Supreme Court, which has been attached with the
present writ petition vide Annexure P-1 is reproduced as
under:-
“ ORDER
After the close of the arguments in this appeal,
this Court made the following order on
29.3.1990:
‘Arguments have been heard and
concluded. The learned counsel for the
appellants has made statement that if the
respondents-authorities allot 9 acres of
land to them, they are ready to pay the
price which may have been obtained by the
respondents fore similar land at the last
auction plus reasonable premium thereon.
The learned counsel for the respondents
prays for and is granted three weeks time to
obtain instructions in this regard.’
It is now stated by counsel for the
respondents that they have no objection to allot 9
acres of land to the appellant, but the latter has
to pay the ruling market price. Counsel for the
appellant, however, states that they are to pay
the that was price prepared prevalent as on the
date on this Court's order that is 29.03.1990. The
submission made by counsel for the appellants
appears the be reasonable accept submission and
direct the respondent-State to to 9 acres of We to
BHUMIKA BHATI
2026.09.11 13:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

CWP-9831-2026 (O&M) -4-
allot the land appellants. The appellants shall
pay the price of such market rates prevalent as
on land at as The market 29.3.1990. price shall
pay the price of such land at market rates as
prevalent as on 29.3.1990. The market price
shall be determined by the Financial
Commissioner (Development), Punjab. The price
determined by him shall be accepted as final and
binding on the appellants.
It is made clear that if the appellants are still
in occupation of the premises, they shall not be
evicted for three months from the date of
allotment of 9 acres of land as directed herein
before.
The appeal is disposed accordingly but in
the facts and circumstances of the case we make
no order as to costs.”
(ii). Thereafter, vide Annexure P-5, a letter dated 09.07.1998
was written by the Director Colonization, Punjab wherein it
was mentioned that the Financial Commissioner
(Development), Punjab conducted a meeting on 20.04.1998
with regard to the fixation of the price of 9 acres of land as
per the order dated 12.12.1991 passed by Hon’ble Supreme
Court. As per the aforesaid order, the market rate was
required to be fixed as on 29.03.1990 and suggestions were
also invited in the meeting, but no suggestion was received
from the other side. Thereafter, the Financial Commissioner
4.28 crores in

(Development), Punjab fixed the price at
total for the aforesaid 9 acres of land and a request was
made to deposit the aforesaid amount in favour of the
BHUMIKA BHATI
2026.09.11 13:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

CWP-9831-2026 (O&M) -5-
Administrator, New Mandi Township, Chandigarh. Learned
Senior Counsel submitted that the land was transferred in
the name of New Mandi Township because the land was
acquired by the State Government for setting up of a mandi .
(iii) Thereafter, the petitioners and the other affected persons made
a representation to the Director, Excise, Punjab, Chandigarh
vide Annexure P-7 on 23.10.2006 for seeking rescission or
amendment of the notification so as to de-notify the land of
the petitioners and to release the same from acquisition. It was
stated in the representation that had the allotment of 9 acres of
land been made by the State Government in the year 1991-92,
the petitioners would have been able to rehabilitate
themselves at a much cheaper rate, however, they were now
required to pay the price of the aforesaid land at the market
value as on 29.03.1990 as per the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and the price so fixed was very high and not in
accordance with the market value as prevalent on 29.03.1990.
Accordingly, a request was made for exemption of the land by
way of de-notification.
(iv) The Association of the petitioners, namely, M/s Sirhind Truck
and Bus Body Builder Association had filed a writ petition
4.28 crores

challenging the action of the respondent in fixing
as the price. However, the aforesaid writ petition was
dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 03.11.2008
vide Annexure P-9 on the ground that the petitioner-
BHUMIKA BHATI
2026.09.11 13:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

CWP-9831-2026 (O&M) -6-
Association had no locus standi to invoke jurisdiction of
Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the purpose of
taking the benefit of the order passed by Hon’ble Supreme
Court on 12.12.1991. The aforesaid order passed by the
Division Bench of this Court was never assailed and therefore,
attained finality.
(v) Learned Senior Counsel submitted that neither the aforesaid
amount was paid by the petitioners nor did they vacate the
land. Thereafter, vide Annexure P-11, the Punjab Mandi
Board (Respondents No.3 & 4) asked the petitioners to
12,15,00,405/- (Rupees Twelve Crores

deposit an amount of
Fifteen Lacs Four Hundred Five Only) on the basis of the
representation given by the petitioners to the Punjab Mandi
Board for the allotment of 9 acres of land. It was so stated in
the aforesaid letter that the petitioners have not removed their
possession from the land and therefore, they have violated the
order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court and in this way, the
aforesaid amount of
12,15,00,405/- was demanded from the

petitioners, which they did not deposit.
(vi) Thereafter, the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board
(Punjab Mandi Board) i.e. respondents No.3 & 4 filed a
petition under Section 4 & 7 of the Punjab Public Premises
and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as ‘PPPL Act’) for eviction of the
petitioners and vide order dated 28.01.2014 (Annexure P-12),
learned Collector directed the petitioners to vacate the land
BHUMIKA BHATI
2026.09.11 13:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

CWP-9831-2026 (O&M) -7-
within 30 days and as per sub-section (1) of Section 7 of
PPPL Act, also directed to pay the arrears of rent up to date
15,61,971/- to the Punjab Mandi

which is amounting to
Board with a further direction that till such time, as possession
of the land was not taken over by the Punjab Mandi Board,
the petitioners shall be bound to pay the due rent to the Punjab
Mandi Board. The aforesaid order passed by the learned
Collector was assailed by the petitioners by filing of an appeal
under Section 9 of the PPPL Act. However, the said appeal
was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner, Fatehgarh Sahib
while exercising the powers of Commissioner under the PPPL
Act vide order dated 01.08.2014 (Annexure P-15). These
orders were challenged by filing a writ petition bearing CWP-
22848-2014 before this Court and learned Single Judge of this
Court dismissed the writ petition on 22.12.2015 vide
Annexure P-16, upholding the order of eviction. The
petitioners thereafter filed separate LPAs, with the lead case
bearing LPA No.596 of 2016 and the LPAs were dismissed
vide judgment dated 28.11.2025 vide Annexure P-17.
Thereafter, the petitioners filed a Special Leave Petition
bearing SLP (Civil) Diary No.1825 of 2026, which was
dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 15.01.2026 vide
Annexure P-24 and the State Government was directed to
remove the encroachment and submit a compliance affidavit
before the High Court.
(vii) Learned Senior Counsel submitted that at the time when
BHUMIKA BHATI
2026.09.11 13:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

CWP-9831-2026 (O&M) -8-
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the year 1991 directed that the
rates are to be fixed by the Financial Commissioner
(Development), Punjab as per the market rate prevalent as on
29.03.1990, the Financial Commissioner (Development),
4.28 crores, which

Punjab had fixed the price of the land at
was exorbitant and on the higher side and the same was not
deposited by the petitioners. However, the petitioners had
been agitating with regard to the same and had also requested
the State Government to exempt the land so that they could
continue to carry on their business at the same place, but no
action was taken by the respondent in this regard. He further
submitted that although the petitioners ought to have vacated
the land by now, especially in view of the strict orders passed
by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Annexure P-24, but the
petitioners are still carrying on their business and in the
absence of any alternate land, they would be deprived of their
livelihood. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed
for seeking a direction to the respondents/State to now allot
land to the petitioners as per the fair market value, which can
be determined on the applicable Collector rates as on
04.11.2025.
2. During the course of arguments, this Court had put a pointed
query to learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners as well as to the learned
State Counsel as to whether the petitioners have vacated the land on which
they are carrying on their business, particularly in view of the specific
directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court or not. In response to the
BHUMIKA BHATI
2026.09.11 13:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

CWP-9831-2026 (O&M) -9-
aforesaid query, it was stated by learned counsel for the parties that the
petitioners have not yet vacated the land and are still in possession thereof,
despite the directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
3. Today, Dr. Sona Thind, Deputy Commissioner, Shri Fatehgarh
Sahib has joined the proceedings through video conferencing and this Court
specifically asked her as to why the order dated 15.01.2026 passed by
Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Annexure P-24 has not been complied with, to
which she submitted categorically that efforts will be made for eviction
within a period of one week.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court
is of the considered view that the petitioners have been in unauthorized
possession of the land, which stood acquired in the year 1984 when the
award was passed. The acquisition has already been upheld and the
petitioners still remain in possession of the land. Apparently, there has been
a long history of litigation pertaining to the challenge to the acquisition,
fixation of rate and eviction of the petitioners under the PPPL Act. In the
earlier round of litigation when the matter went up to Hon’ble Supreme
Court, Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 12.12.1991
(Annexure P-1) on the basis of the statements of both the parties, observed
that the petitioners shall pay the price of the land at market rates prevalent as
on 29.03.1990 and this price shall be determined by the Financial
Commissioner (Development), Punjab, which shall be accepted as final and
binding upon the petitioners. With regard to the eviction of the petitioners
from the land, a period of only three months was granted by Hon’ble
Supreme Court as per the order reproduced above, but admittedly, the
petitioners have not vacated the land till date. The Financial Commissioner
BHUMIKA BHATI
2026.09.11 13:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

CWP-9831-2026 (O&M) -10-
(Development), Punjab fixed the rate at
4.28 crores for the land in the year

1998 which as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reproduced
above, would be the final rate and as per the aforesaid judgment, it shall be
accepted and binding upon all the petitioners. However, a challenge was still
laid to the aforesaid fixation of the price not by the petitioners but by the
Association, perhaps because before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the
petitioners were in their individual capacity and the judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court was binding upon them and a writ petition was filed by the
Association of the petitioners, which ultimately got dismissed vide order
dated 03.11.2008 (Annexure P-9) for lack of locus standi and the said order
was never assailed and therefore, attained finality.
5. When the petitioners neither paid the amount as fixed by the
Financial Commissioner (Development), Punjab nor vacated the land,
ejectment proceedings were initiated by the Collector. The eviction order
was passed vide Annexure P-12 wherein they were directed to vacate the
land within 30 days. This order was passed on 28.01.2014 and the rent was
also assessed but still the petitioners did not vacate the land. The said order
was assailed by filing of a statutory appeal which was also dismissed by the
Deputy Commissioner, Fatehgarh Sahib vide order dated 01.08.2014
(Annexure P-15). Thereafter, the aforesaid orders of eviction were assailed
by filing a writ petition, which was also dismissed vide Annexure P-16 dated
22.12.2015, in which, rather learned Single Judge recorded the observations
that the petitioners did not cooperate in the determination of the price of the
said 9 acres of land which was to be allotted to them, though it was
calculated on the basis of the auction held on 11.11.1988. It was further
observed by learned Single Judge that an amount of 4,28,44,403/- was
BHUMIKA BHATI
2026.09.11 13:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

CWP-9831-2026 (O&M) -11-
settled by associating the petitioners by the Financial Commissioner
(Development), Punjab, whose order was to be treated as final and binding
as per the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the petitioners were duly
informed to deposit the aforesaid amount within 30 days but they did not
pay any heed to it and kept quiet for a long time, filing unnecessary
petitions/suits involving the respondents in the litigation regarding the
determination of the price of the land. It was further also observed by
learned Single Judge that as a matter of fact, there is no equity in favour of
the petitioners because of their own act and conduct and there is no illegality
in the order of eviction passed under the PPPL Act. The relevant portion of
the order passed by learned Single Judge is reproduced as under:-
“There is no dispute that the land in question, in
possession of the petitioners, has already been acquired.
It was only an arrangement made by the Supreme Court,
where the petitioners made a statement that if they are
allotted 9 acres of land by the respondents, they would
pay the price which may have been obtained by the
respondents from the last auction plus reasonable
premium thereon. On the question of market rate of the 9
acres of land, the Supreme Court had directed that the
respondents would allot 9 acres of land to the petitioners,
who would pay the price of such land at the market rate
as prevalent as on 29.03.1990, which shall be determined
by the Financial Commissioner (Development), Punjab
and his decision to be accepted as final and binding. The
petitioners' possession was protected only for a period of
three months from the date of allotment of 9 acres of
land. The petitioners did not cooperate in the
determination of the price of the said 9 acres of land
which was to be allotted to them though it was calculated
on the basis of the auction dated 11.11.1988 @ 844/-
BHUMIKA BHATI
2026.09.11 13:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

CWP-9831-2026 (O&M) -12-
per sq. yard with 12% interest to the tune of
4,28,44,403/-, whereas the similar land auctioned in the
year 2006 fetched a sum of 5,110/- per sq. yards as
against 844/- per sq. yard. It is also not disputed that
the amount of 4.28 crores for 9 acres of land was
settled by associating the petitioners by the Financial
Commissioner (Development), Punjab, whose order was
to be treated as final and binding as per the order of the
Supreme Court and the petitioners were duly
informed/asked to deposit the amount within 30 days vide
letter dated 09.07.1998 but the petitioners did not pay
any heed to it and kept quiet for a long time, filing
unnecessary petitions/suits involving the respondents in
the litigation regarding the determination of the price of
the land. Ultimately, in the year 2006, the respondents
served a notice of taking legal action for not depositing
the amount as the petitioners have retained the
possession of the acquired land all throughout and when
the amount was not paid, the respondents had to file the
petitions under Sections 4 and 7 of the Act, which has
now been allowed by both the Courts below and when the
possession of the petitioners was threatened, the present
writ petitions have been filed.
As a matter of fact, there is no equity in favour of
the petitioners because of their own act and conduct and
there is no illegality in the order of eviction passed under
the Act. Insofar as the date and rate of interest are
concerned, the petitioners are liable to pay interest from
the date when the notice dated 09.07.1998 was served
upon them and cannot take the shelter of Section 3 of the
Interest Act, 1978 in order to pay the current rate of
interest as it would not apply in the facts and
circumstances of the present case and the respondents
have rightly determined the rate of interest @ 12% per
BHUMIKA BHATI
2026.09.11 13:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

CWP-9831-2026 (O&M) -13-
annum, charged on the amount determined of the value
of the 9 acres of land which is now being sold at the
collector rate of 3,20,000/- per marla, which comes to
5,12,00,000/- per acre and the total costs of 9 acres of
land comes to 46,08,00,000/-.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
all the writ petitions are hereby dismissed being denuded
of any merit.”
6. When the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge was
assailed by the petitioners by filing separate LPAs, it was recorded by
learned Division Bench that when the petitioners were asked whether they
were ready to accept 9 acres of land at the market value prevailing at that
time, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the market value or
the Collector rate was such that the same could not be afforded by the
petitioners. All the LPAs filed by the petitioners were dismissed vide a
common judgment dated 28.11.2025 (Annexure P-17). The relevant portion
of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:-
“31. Further, on being asked whether they are
ready to accept 9 acres of land at the market value which
prevails as of now, learned counsel for the appellants
submits that the market value or the collector rate is such
that the same cannot be afforded by the appellants.
Hence, even on that score, no relief can be granted.”
7. These judgments were assailed by filing an SLP before Hon’ble
Supreme Court and vide its judgment dated 15.01.2026 (Annexure P-24),
Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the aforesaid SLP. The judgment
passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Annexure P-24 is reproduced as
under:-
BHUMIKA BHATI
2026.09.11 13:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

CWP-9831-2026 (O&M) -14-
“ORDER
1. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners at
considerable length.
2. The history of this litigation exhibits the consistent
dishonest and greedy stand taken by the petitioner(s) and
their associates before this Court, as well as before the
High Court. The subject land has admittedly been
occupied by them, and they are using it for purely
commercial gains. In terms of the decision rendered by
this Court way back on 12.12.1991, the State
Government offered 9 acres of land on 09.07.1998 at the
fixed rate of Rs.4.28 crores. The petitioner (3) and their
associates, however, deliberately have not accepted the
fair and reasonable offer made at that time. They
continued to occupy the public property for their
personal commercial gains. Now, when the eviction
action was taken to remove the encroachment from the
public property, they approached the High Court, where
the High Court, in all fairness, again gave them the
option to pay the current market value of the land
measuring 9 acres. The petitioners, however, refused to
accept such an offer.
3. That being so, we are satisfied that the petitioners are
not entitled to any relief either in law or in equity. The
impugned judgment of the High Court, thus, warrants no
interference by this Court. The Special Leave Petitions
are, accordingly, dismissed. The State Government is
directed to remove the encroachment and submit a
compliance affidavit before the High Court.
4. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.”
8. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment would show that Hon’ble
BHUMIKA BHATI
2026.09.11 13:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

CWP-9831-2026 (O&M) -15-
Supreme Court observed that the history of this litigation exhibits the
consistent dishonest and greedy stand taken by the petitioners and their
associates and the subject land is admittedly occupied by them and is being
used by them for purely commercial gains and the rate fixed by the State
4.28 crores was deliberately not accepted by the

Government i.e.
petitioners and they continued to occupy the public property for their
personal commercial gains. It was further observed that rather the Hon’ble
High Court in all fairness gave them the option to pay the current market
value of the land measuring 9 acres but the petitioners refused to accept the
same. It was directed by Hon’ble Supreme Court to the State Government to
remove the encroachment and to submit a compliance affidavit before the
High Court. The relief claimed in the present writ petition is now seeking a
direction to the respondent/State to allot 9 acres of land at the current market
rate which offer rather was given to the petitioner by the Division Bench of
this Court in LPA which has been reproduced above but to which they did
not agree. It is now clear that the petitioners have filed the present writ
petition which amounts to a pure abuse of the process of law as the present
petition is absolutely vexatious in nature.
9. It is an admitted position even today that the petitioners have
not vacated the land despite strict directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme
Court on 15.01.2026, as reproduced above. However, the Deputy
Commissioner, who joined the proceedings through video conferencing has
assured this Court that efforts will be made for eviction within a period of
one week.
10. We are of the considered view that the petitioners have tried to
abuse the process of law, inasmuch as they are still in unauthorized
BHUMIKA BHATI
2026.09.11 13:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

CWP-9831-2026 (O&M) -16-
possession despite eviction order being upheld till Hon’ble Supreme Court
on 15.01.2026. Instead of vacating the land from unauthorized occupation,
the present writ petition has been filed for seeking allotment of another land
at prevailing market rate. At every stage, they were given an opportunity,
right from the year 1991 to pay the market rate, but the petitioners
deliberately did not pay the amount and at the same time, continued in
unlawful occupation of the Government land for about 40 years, of which
they are still in unlawful occupation.
11. We are of the considered view that the petitioners have misused
the process of law and have also perpetuated the litigation by filing the
present writ petition, which is vexatious in nature, apart from being devoid
of merit and therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed with exemplary
costs.
12. Consequently, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed with
2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) in total as costs, which shall be paid
and deposited by all the petitioners with the Punjab and Haryana High Court
Bar Association Lawyers Family Welfare Fund within a period of two
months from today. The liability to pay the aforesaid costs by the petitioners
shall be joint and several. After depositing the aforesaid costs, the petitioners
shall furnish the receipt thereof before the Registry of this Court.
13. In case, the receipt is not furnished before the Registry, then the
Registry shall put up this case for compliance purposes after two months so
that further course of action shall be adopted for recovery of the aforesaid
costs from the petitioners in accordance with law.
14. Considering the aforesaid assurance given by Ms. Sona Thind,
Deputy Commissioner, Shri Fatehgarh Sahib, who had joined the proceedings
BHUMIKA BHATI
2026.09.11 13:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh

CWP-9831-2026 (O&M) -17-
today through video conferencing, we direct the Deputy Commissioner to
remove the encroachment within the aforesaid period and to file a compliance
report. The compliance report shall be filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Shri
Fatehgarh Sahib.
(JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
JUDGE
08.09.2026 (PRAVINDRA SINGH CHAUHAN)
Bhumika JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
2. Whether reportable: Yes/No
BHUMIKA BHATI
2026.09.11 13:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh