Rakesh Kumar And Others v. State Of Haryana And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-8621-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision : 27.04.2026 Rakesh Kumar and Others ... Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and Others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI Present :

Mr. Bhupender Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. (through hybrid mode).

Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG Haryana for respondent Nos.1 to 6. ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral) 1.

Present writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the resolution dated 19.03.2024 (Annexure P-7).

2.

It is to be noticed that there is no resolution passed by Gram Panchayat on 19.03.2024 as stated in the writ petition and infact Annexure P-7 is a representation and not a resolution. In the prayer clause the resolution has been referred to as dated 29.08.2011 (Annexure P-4), however, Annexure P-4 appended with the petition are copies of Jamabandis. In the index the resolution has been referred to as Annexure P-3. The resolution is dated 29.08.2011 whereby Gram Panchayat passed a resolution under the Mahatma Gandhi Gramin Basti Yojna to allocate plots of 100 sq. yards. As per averments made in the writ petition itself, Hibanama/Daan Patra were JITENDER KUMAR 2026.04.28 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh

CWP-8621-2026 -2registered before the Sub-Registrar, Nilokheri in favour of the private respondents in the year 2011-12. The petitioners filed a complaint on 07.03.2024 followed by a representation dated 19.03.2024 highlighting certain violations.

3.

Section 10A of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 gives the power to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade to cancel or vary any sale, lease, gift, or exchange of lands vested in a Panchayat. Once there is a legal remedy provided in the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and without having resorted to said legal remedy, the question of entertaining the present writ petition does not arise. 4.

Dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. Needless to say the petitioners would always be at liberty to avail their remedies as available in law.

( ALKA SARIN ) JUDGE 27.04.2026 jk ( RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI ) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO JITENDER KUMAR 2026.04.28 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh