Sodan Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others

LPA-1939-2026(O&M)
- 1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
142
LPA-1939-2026(O&M)
Sodan Singh and others
... Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and others
... Respondents
Judgment
Reserved on
Judgment
Pronounced on
Judgment
Uploaded on
Whether only
the operative
part of the
judgment is
pronounced
Whether the full
judgment is
pronounced
12.10.2026 02.11.2026 04.11.2026 No Yes
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH GAUR
Present:- Mr. D.S. Matya, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Deepak Vashisth, DAG, Haryana
for respondents No.1 to 4.
Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, Advocate
for respondent No.5.
Mr. Anil Kumar Rana, Advocate and
Mr. Harsh Rana, Advocate
for respondents No.6 to 12.

SUVIR SEHGAL, J.
1. This appeal has been filed under Clause X of the Letters
Patent challenging judgment dated 06.07.2026, passed by learned Single
BRIJ MOHAN BHALLA
2026.11.04 11:07
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.

LPA-1939-2026(O&M)
- 2-

Judge, whereby writ petition filed by the appellants challenging orders
15.04.2025 and 11.09.2025, Annexures P11 and P14, respectively, passed
under the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery)
Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1972’), has been dismissed.
2. Controversy pertains to land which admittedly vests in the
Municipal Corporation, Gurugram (for short “MC Gurugram”) and has been
allotted to members of the barber/Nai Samaj in the year 1976. Appellants
claim to be in possession since the year 1947 and they have constructed
residential houses upon the land in dispute. Some portion of the land was
allotted to the Nai community in the year 1976, but physical possession could
not be delivered to the allottees. In the year, 2016, appellants were served with
eviction notices, which were challenged by them by filing CWP-22216-2016
before this Court. Vide order dated 31.01.2024, Annexure P8, a Division
Bench of this Court quashed the eviction notices and directed the MC
Gurugram to institute an eviction petition under the Act of 1972. MC,
Gurugram accordingly filed a petition, Annexure P9 under section 5 and 7 of
the Act of 1972, which was contested by the appellants. Vide order dated
15.04.2025, Annexure P11, AC Ist Grade, Sohna held that appellants were in
illegal possession and ordered their eviction from the plots allotted to the Nai
Samaj. Appellants remained unsuccessful before the Commissioner,
Gurugram, who rejected their statutory appeal on 11.09.2025, Annexure P14.
Both the orders have been affirmed by the learned Single Judge, vide judgment
impugned herein.
BRIJ MOHAN BHALLA
2026.11.04 11:07
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.

LPA-1939-2026(O&M)
- 3-

3. Mr. D. S. Matya, counsel for the appellants has argued that
the appellants are in open and peaceful possession of the land, which they are
entitled to protect. He urges that some plots had been allotted to the Nai Samaj
and as land in dispute is private property, eviction petition filed by the MC,
Gurugram is not maintainable. He urges that the learned Single Judge, has
failed to appreciate the facts and has erred in dismissing the writ petition.
4. Per contra , counsel for the respondents have supported the
impugned judgment and assert that appellants are in an unauthorised
possession of public land.
5. We have heard counsel for the parties and considered their
respective submissions besides examining the record.
6. Appellants cannot dispute that the land vests in the MC,
Gurugram. This fact has been specifically noticed by this Court in its judgment
dated 31.01.2024, Annexure P8. Appellants’ claim is essentially based on the
assertion that they have been in uninterrupted possession of land since 1947.
However, mere long possession in itself does not confer any lawful entitlement
to continue in occupation of public land, particularly in absence of any right,
title or lawful authority permitting such occupation. The argument that
Municipal Corporation lacks the jurisdiction to initiate eviction proceedings,
though attractive on first brush, is without any substance. An examination of
the record shows that some portion of the land was allotted to the Nai Samaj,
but possession was never delivered. Ownership of the land continues to vest in
the Municipal Corporation, who has rightly invoked the provisions of the Act
BRIJ MOHAN BHALLA
2026.11.04 11:07
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.

LPA-1939-2026(O&M)
- 4-

of 1972. Moreover, Municipal Corporation is bound to deliver the possession
of the land to the lawful allottees. By its judgment dated 31.01.2024, Annexure
P8, this Court had passed a specific direction to MC, Gurugram to initiate
eviction proceedings under the Act of 1972. Adequate opportunity has been
provided to the appellants to respond to the eviction proceedings, and they
were given a hearing prior to the passing of the eviction orders. Appellants
have pursued their statutory remedies but remained unsuccessful. Procedure
prescribed under the Act of 1972 has been adhered to and appellants, who have
been found to be in illegal possession, have no enforceable right to remain in
possession of the land. We do not find any illegality or perversity in the
judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.
7. Finding no merit in the appeal, it is dismissed, though with
no order as to costs.
8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also
stand disposed of.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
JUDGE
(RAJESH GAUR)
JUDGE
02.11.2026
Brij
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
BRIJ MOHAN BHALLA
2026.11.04 11:07
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.