Balbir Singh And Others v. State Of Haryana And Others

[1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 01.07.2026 Balbir Singh and others

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA

Present:

Mr. C.M. Munjal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Pradeep Prakash Chahar, Addl. A.G. Haryana. **** VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) 1.

This is a Civil Writ Petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to transfer the non-cultivatable land upon which the houses have been constructed since the year 1985-86 and 1991-92 and further for regularisation of constructed houses build on Shamlat Panchayat land being allotted by the Gram Panchayat after getting the approval from the competent authorities.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case, it is the case of the petitioners that the case of the petitioners is covered by the policy of the Haryana Government of the year 2025 and has further submitted that a detailed representation dated 08.10.2025 (Annexure

[2] P-11) has been given by the petitioners to the respondent authorities. It is further submitted that no decision on the said representation has been taken. It is submitted that at this stage, the petitioners would be satisfied in case, respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector Sirsa, District Sirsa (Haryana), which is the competent authority, would consider the said representation dated 08.10.2025 in accordance with law and would pass a speaking order on the same. It is further fairly submitted that although an order of eviction has been passed against the present petitioners on 05.11.2025 but the petitioners have filed an appeal against the said order dated 05.11.2025 and the stay has been granted by the Appellate Authority. 3.

Learned counsel for the State appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 has submitted that respondent No.2 would be the competent authority who would consider the representation dated 08.10.2025 in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. It is further submitted that passing of the present order should not be considered as an expression of opinion on the merits of the appeal pending before the Collector against the order dated 05.11.2025. 4.

Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances and fair stand taken on behalf of the petitioners as well as on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, the present writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.2 to decide the representation dated 08.10.2025 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from today.

5.

It is made clear that this Court has not opined on the merits of the representation dated 08.10.2025 and same would be considered and

[3] decided by passing a speaking order by respondent No.2 independently in accordance with law.

6.

The present order would not be considered as an expression of opinion on the merits of the appeal which is stated to be pending before the Appellate Authority against the order dated 05.11.2025. (VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE (SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE 01.07.2026 Pawan Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No