Haryana HC Keeps Possession Status Quo Over Shamlat-Land House While Fresh Regularisation Plea Is Reconsidered

The petitioners had earlier applied under Section 5A(1A) of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, seeking consideration of their case under the 2024 amendment and the SOP dated 7 April 2025 for regularisation of unauthorised houses on shamlat land.

After the Court, in CWP-9709-2026, permitted them to submit a fresh application under the SOPs, they filed an application dated 10 April 2026.

The Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 13 July 2026 rejected an earlier application dated 17 February 2025 and referred to compliance with an earlier court order dated 12 December 2025, but did not decide the fresh application or refer to the order dated 2 April 2026.

The petitioners challenged that order and sought protection of their possession pending reconsideration.

Article 226 of the Constitution permits the High Court to set aside an administrative order where the authority has failed to decide the application that it was required to consider.

Section 5A(1A) of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, the SOPs dated 7 April 2025, and the Court’s directions in CWP-9709-2026 governed consideration of the petitioners’ fresh application.

Under that earlier order, the application was to be dealt with by the competent authorities in accordance with law and the SOPs.

No separate precedent was relied upon.

The Deputy Commissioner’s operative order addressed the petitioners’ earlier application dated 17 February 2025 and stated that it was passed in compliance with the order dated 12 December 2025.

The Court’s order dated 2 April 2026 had instead permitted a fresh application, which the petitioners filed on 10 April 2026.

Because the Deputy Commissioner had not made a final decision on that application, the impugned order did not fulfil the task arising from the later court order and was liable to be set aside on that limited ground.

The Court expressly left the merits open and directed that possession be maintained until a final decision.

The Deputy Commissioner, Karnal, was directed to consider the application dated 10 April 2026, preferably within six weeks, after giving the petitioners or their authorised representative an opportunity to be heard.

If no Gram Panchayat resolution had been passed pursuant to that application, the Deputy Commissioner could direct the Gram Panchayat to pass one in accordance with the SOPs.

Status quo regarding possession was ordered until the final decision; the Court expressed no opinion on the merits.