Yahooda Mohammad vs State Of Haryana - 2025 Supreme(P&H) 1191

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(P&H) 1191

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
VIKAS SURI
Yahooda Mohammad – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Mohd. Arshad, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. AG Haryana with Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, Addl. A.G. Haryana, Mr. P.P. Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana, Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana, Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana and Mr. Karan Jindal, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sarthak Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Santosh Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Sahil Mehndiratta, Advocate.

JUDGMENT :

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

CWP-9145-2024

1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, seeking therebys the quashing of the order dated 13.4.2024 (Annexure P-11) passed by respondent No.3, wherebys, respondent No.3 has constituted a four member committee consisting of respondent Nos.4, 6, 7 and 9, thus to enquire into the matter, as to whether the respondent No. 10 is in unauthorized possession of the gram panchayat land, albeit this action of the respondent No. 3 is illegal, unjust, improper, unconstitutional as well as violative of the provisions of Section 177 (2) of Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1994') and Section 13 C and 13 D of The Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1961') as the respondent No.3 has no authority under any law to interfere with the order dated 09.04.2024 passed by respondent No.2 (Annexure P-9), rather as per provision of Section 177 (2) of the Act of 1994, the only remedy with respondent No. 10, is to file an appeal before the government against the order (Annexure P-9). However, instead

Click Here to Read the rest of this document