Navneet Kumar Narula v. Union Territory, Chandigarh And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP-11517-2026 Date of decision: April 18, 2026 NAVNEET KUMAR NARULA ....Petitioner

Versus

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI

Present:

Mr. Bhupesh Dogra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjeev Ghai, Additional Standing Counsel with Ms. Mahima Dogra, Junior Panel Counsel for UT, Chandigarh. ***** SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (ORAL) 1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner's grandfather - Sohan Lal was the owner of Booth No. 173, Sector 35D, Chandigarh, which was resumed in the year 2001. 2.

Learned counsel asserts that after the death of Sohan Lal on 16.03.2010, one of his legal representatives - Baldev Kumar got the property transferred in his favour on the basis of a false affidavit. Learned counsel states that petitioner, who is the son of Surinder Kumar, sibling of Baldev Kumar, has moved representations, Annexures P-9 and P-10, before the authorities for the revocation of illegal transfer.

RITU SHARMA 2026.04.23 11:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-11517-2026 -23.

Be that as it may, petitioner being a son of one of legal representatives of original allottee has no right in the property. He can neither file this writ petition nor agitate the alleged wrongful transfer of the property in the name of one of his uncles.

4.

Writ petition is not maintainable and is dismissed as such. (SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE (VIKAS SURI) April 18, 2026 JUDGE Rts Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No RITU SHARMA 2026.04.23 11:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document