Anuja Singhal And Another v. State Of Haryana And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP-13699-2025 Date of Decision: 22.05.2025 ANUJA SINGHAL AND ANOTHER .......PETITONERS

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENTS

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present:- Mr. Vikram Singh Punia, Advocate Ms. Yashasvi Rana, Advocate and Mr. Amit Siwach, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana with Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana.

***** DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) 1.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at this stage, he restricts his claim to the issuance of a direction to respondent No.5 to expeditiously decide the petitioner's appeal (Annexure P-23) or at least the prayer for stay filed by the petitioners along with their aforesaid appeal filed under Section 20 of the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran Act, 1977 (For short 1977 Act) to challenge therein the order/notice dated 25.04.2025 passed by the Estate Officer, HSVP, Sonipat.

2.

Learned State counsel has no objection to the acceptance of afore alternative prayer made on behalf of the petitioners.

3. The afore alternative prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners is found to be reasonable. The learned State counsel has also no objection to its acceptance. Even otherwise a direction to expeditiously PRINCE SAINI 2025.05.26 05:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-13699-2025 -2decide a lis between the parties prejudice none. Rather, an early decision benefits both the parties to the lis.

4. In the light of above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.5 to take decision, preferably within one month, on the statutory appeal filed by the petitioners to challenge therein the order/notice dated 25.04.2025 passed by the Estate Officer, HSVP, Sonipat but only after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to all concerned, in accordance with law.

5. Needless to say that in case, the decision taken by respondent No.5 on the petitioners' aforesaid appeal is prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners, they would be at liberty to challenge the same, in accordance with law.

6. It is further clarified that by issuing the afore directions, we are not commenting on the merits of the appeal filed by the petitioners or on the maintainability/entertainability of their claim made by them through their appeal.

[DEEPAK SIBAL] JUDGE [LAPITA BANERJI] 22.05.2025 JUDGE Prince Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No PRINCE SAINI 2025.05.26 05:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document