Narinder Singh v. State Of Punjab And ORS

CWP-2907-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-2907-2026 DATE OF DECISION: 12.02.2026 NARINDER SINGH ... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA

Present:

Mr. Hemant Sarin, Advocate and Mr. Shikhar Sarin, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Aftab Singh Khara, Senior DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Dharminder Singh Randhawa, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

**** ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of land measuring 312.5 square yards comprised in Khasra No. 3769/1145 min, situated in village Sultanwind Sub-Urban, District Amritsar. The land was purchased by him vide sale deed dated 06.03.2024 (Annexure P-2). The land had been exempted from the notification for acquisition. He had sought NOC for raising construction but no action was taken by the respondent and was constrained to approach this Court by preferring a writ petition bearing CWP-15705-2025. This Court had directed the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner. However, the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner by a non-speaking order dated 10.09.2025 (Annexure P-11) and the only ground KUMARI SAPNA 2026.02.13 15.22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-2907-2026 mentioned is that there is no title document for the land measuring 312.5 square yards. He further submits that the petitioner ought to have been granted an opportunity to produce the relevant documents and only thereafter, his representation ought to have been decided.

2.

Heard.

3.

It is manifest from a bare reading of the impugned order that no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to submit the requisite title documents. 4.

Therefore, we find merit in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that if there was any deficiency, the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity to remove the same and produce the required documents whereas no such opportunity had been granted to the petitioner. 5.

We, therefore, set aside the impugned order, being unsustainable in the eyes of law and the petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to prefer an application along with the requisite documents within a period of 15 days before respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner shall pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law within a period of three months.

(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE 12.02.2026 sapna Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No KUMARI SAPNA 2026.02.13 15.22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document