Suba Singh Alias Sube Singh And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others

Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court

CWP-35330-2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(124)
CWP-35330-2026
Date of Decision: - 28.10.2026
Suba Singh @ Sube Singh and another
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DIVYA SHARMA
Present:- Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, and
Mr. Divyam Singh, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Pradeep Prakash Chahar, Addl. A.G., Haryana
for respondents No.1 to 4.

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. In the present writ petition, the following prayers have been
made in the headnote: -
“CIVIL WRIT PETITION under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the Nature of
Certiorari for setting aside the order dated 13.07.2026
(Annexure P-14) whereby the claim of the petitioner for
considering his case in view of The Haryana Village Common
Lands (Regulation) Amendment, 2024 dated 12.12.2024
(Annexure P-5) and the SOP for regularization of unauthorized
constructed houses on shamlat land dated 07.04.2025
(Annexure P-6) has been rejected wrongly, illegally and without
NARESH KUMAR
2026.10.31 10:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-35330-2026 -2-
jurisdiction.
AND
Further issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the
respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in view of
The Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Amendment,
2024 dated 12.12.2024 (Annexure P-5) and the SOP for
regularization of unauthorized constructed houses on shamlat
land dated 07.04.2025 (Annexure P-6).
AND
For the issuance of any other appropriate writ, order or
direction, as may be deemed necessary in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
AND
Further issue a writ in the nature of
Mandamus/Prohibition for staying the demolition of the
construction of the house of the petitioner, during the pendnecy
of the present writ petition”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on an
earlier application filed by the petitioners under Section 5A(1A) of the
Haryana Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961, an order dated
18.03.2026 was passed by the BDPO and thereafter, the petitioners had
filed a writ petition bearing CWP-9709-2026 and the Co-ordinate
Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.04.2026, after noticing
the submission made on behalf of the respondent-authorities to the effect
that the order of the BDPO dated 18.03.2026 would be withdrawn, the
petitioners were granted liberty to file a fresh application/representation
in accordance with the SOPs in place which came into operation on
07.04.2025.
NARESH KUMAR
2026.10.31 10:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-35330-2026 -3-
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that
subsequent thereto, on 10.04.2026 the petitioners filed an application
under Section 5A(1A) of the Haryana Village Common Land
(Regulation) Act, 1961, which has been annexed as Annexure P-12, in
which it was stated by the petitioners that their house had been
constructed over the land in question prior to 2004 and the property was
being used for residence and school and they further undertook that the
same would be used only for residential purposes. It is pointed out that
the Deputy Commissioner, while rejecting the case, had rejected the
earlier application filed and not the application dated 10.04.2026 and
further had also observed in the operative part of the order that the said
order was being passed in compliance with the order passed by the High
Court on 12.12.2025. However, no reference was made in the operative
part of the impugned order to the order dated 02.04.2026 passed by the
High Court, vide which the petitioners were permitted to file a fresh
application. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner, which has been highlighted, is reproduced as under: -
“Therefore, I, Dr. Anand Kumar Sharma, I.A.S, Deputy
Commissioner, Karnal, in compliance with the order dated
12.12.2025 of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court,
report No.1025 dated 12.06.2026 of Block Development and
Panchayat Officer, Assandh and after hearing all the concerned
personally, as there is no merits in the facts given in the
application letter dated 17.02.2025 (Annexure P-2) of the
applicants, therefore, the same be filed in the office.
NARESH KUMAR
2026.10.31 10:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-35330-2026 -4-
Sd/-
Deputy Commissioner”
4. It is prayed that in view of the said circumstances, the
impugned order deserves to be set aside and the Deputy Commissioner be
directed to consider the application dated 10.04.2026 filed by the
petitioners in pursuance of the order dated 02.04.2026 passed by the Co-
ordinate Division Bench of this Court.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 4-State
has pointed out that a perusal of the impugned order dated 13.07.2026
would show that the Deputy Commissioner has also made a reference to
the resolution passed by the gram panchayat dated 27.05.2026, which was
subsequent to the order passed by the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this
Court dated 02.04.2026, which shows that the gram panchayat had
considered the petitioner's case and the application dated 10.04.2026.
However, learned counsel for the State could not dispute the fact that in
the operative part of the order dated 13.07.2026, no reference has been
made to the application dated 10.04.2026 or to the order dated 02.04.2026
and rather reference has been made to the order dated 12.12.2025 passed
by the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court, which was an earlier
order. Learned State counsel has further submitted that in case the
impugned order is to be set aside on the said ground, then, the same
should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the
case and the Deputy Commissioner be permitted to re-decide the matter
independently, in accordance with law.
NARESH KUMAR
2026.10.31 10:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-35330-2026 -5-
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that till the
time the Deputy Commissioner finally decides the matter, status quo with
respect to possession be maintained. It is further submitted that an
opportunity of hearing be also granted to the petitioners to clarify all the
facts.
7. A perusal of the paper-book would show that the petitioners
had filed CWP-9709-2026 which was decided on 02.04.2026 in the
following terms: -
“1. Learned counsel for the respondents, on
instructions from Sh.Umed Singh, Block Development and
Panchayat Officer concerned, states that the order dated
18.03.2026 (Annexure P-8) passed by the BDPO concerned
would be withdrawn. It has further been pointed out that the
application filed by the petitioners was prior to the coming into
operation of the SOPs dated 07.04.2025 and that the
petitioners should now file an appropriate application before
the Gram Panchayat concerned as per the SOPs which would
be dealt with by the Gram Panchayat concerned as per the
provisions of law and as per the SOPs.
2. In view of the statement made by the learned
counsel for the respondents, the present writ petition is
disposed off. The petitioners, if so advised, would be at liberty
to file a fresh application/representation before the Gram
Panchayat concerned within a period of 10 days from today.
The application/representation so filed by the petitioners would
be dealt with by the Gram Panchayat concerned in accordance
with law and as per the SOPs dated 07.04.2025 within a period
of four weeks thereafter.
3. Till such time the said application/representation
NARESH KUMAR
2026.10.31 10:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-35330-2026 -6-
of the petitioner is not decided, learned counsel for the
respondents has assured the Court that status quo qua the
possession would be maintained.
4. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed
off.
02.04.2026”
A perusal of the above order would show that the
respondents, on instructions, had withdrawn the order of the BDPO dated
18.03.2026 and the petitioners had been permitted to file a fresh
application before the gram panchayat in accordance with the SOPs,
which came into operation on 07.04.2025. An interim order was also
passed in favour of the petitioners till the said application was finally
decided.
8. The petitioners in pursuance of the same had filed an
application dated 10.04.2026 (Annexure P-12). A perusal of the order
passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 13.07.2026, which has been
impugned in the present writ petition and the relevant portion of which
has been reproduced herein-above, would show that in the operative part
of the order, the Deputy Commissioner had stated that the said order was
being passed in compliance to the order dated 12.12.2025, which was an
earlier order passed by the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court,
whereas, the Deputy Commissioner was required to pass the order in
pursuance of the order dated 02.04.2026 passed by the Co-ordinate
Division Bench of this Court wherein liberty was granted to the
NARESH KUMAR
2026.10.31 10:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-35330-2026 -7-
petitioners to file a fresh application. The Deputy Commissioner had
further rejected the application/letter dated 17.02.2025 and had not taken
any final decision on the application dated 10.04.2026. In the said
circumstances, the impugned order dated 13.07.2026 is liable to be set
aside on the said short ground alone.
9. Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances, the
present writ petition is partly allowed and the impugned order dated
13.07.2026 is set aside with the following observations/directions: -
(i) The Deputy Commissioner, Karnal is directed to consider the
application dated 10.04.2026 filed by the petitioners in
compliance to the order dated 02.04.2026 passed in CWP-
9709-2026, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a
period of six weeks from today, after giving an opportunity
of hearing to the petitioners or their authorized
representative.
(ii) It has been highlighted by the learned counsel for the
respondents-State that a resolution had already been passed
by the gram panchayat on 27.05.2026. In case there is no
such resolution passed pursuant to the application dated
10.04.2026, it would be open to the Deputy Commissioner to
direct the gram panchayat to pass a resolution in accordance
with the SOPs.
(iii) Till the time a final decision is taken by the Deputy
Commissioner, status quo with respect to possession be
NARESH KUMAR
2026.10.31 10:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-35330-2026 -8-
maintained. The grant of said interim order should not be
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the
case and the Deputy Commissioner would consider the case
independently, in accordance with law.
(iv) It is also clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the application dated 10.04.2026 and the
impugned order has been set aside solely on account of the
limited reasons which have been detailed herein-above.
(v) It would be open to respondent No.5-gram panchayat to seek
recalling of the present order in case it is aggrieved by the
same.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
(DIVYA SHARMA)
JUDGE
October 28, 2026
naresh.k
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes
Whether reportable? Yes
NARESH KUMAR
2026.10.31 10:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document