IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

116 (02 cases) CWP-36818-2025 Date of Decision :11.12.2025 Kamal Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CWP-36819-2025 Harjit Singh and another … Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Mr. Krishan Singh Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Rahul Rampal, Addl. A.G. Punjab &

Mr. Sanjay Sabherwal, Addl. A.G. Punjab.

(keeping in view advance copy served).

* * *

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

1. By this common order, above mentioned two writ petitions are being disposed of as both the petitions involve the same question of law on similar facts.

2. In the present petitions, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 05.12.2025 (Annexure P/10) in CWP-36818-2025 and dated 05.12.2025 (Annexure P/7) in CWP-36819-2025 passed by respondent No.4 whereby, the nomination papers of the petitioner(s) for contesting the elections as member of Panchayat Samiti, Dasuya from Zone No.9 and 3 have been rejected by the authorities concerned on the ground that the said order is factually incorrect and is liable to be set aside and the petitioner(s) be treated as eligible candidates to contest the Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad elections, which are scheduled to be held on 14.12.2025.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that the nomination papers of the petitioner-Kamal Singh have been rejected on the ground that the petitioner-Kamal Singh and his family is in unauthorized possession and has encroached upon the land described as Gair Mumkin Rasta and, therefore, keeping in view the said alleged encroachment, the ineligibility has been attributed to the petitioner Kamal Singh and his nomination papers have been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that with regard to the petitioner-Harjeet Singh, it has been mentioned that his family was allotted five marlas of land by the Government being member of the scheduled castes but at the site, the family of Harjeet Singh which also includes his son, have been found in the possession of 01 kanal and 10 marlas wherein, the shops have also been constructed by him and hence, the illegal possession has been attributed to the petitioners, which is incorrect as there is no land which has been encroached upon by the petitioner(s).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) further argues that where the relief claimed in the writ petition is such that the elections are not required to be postponed, the relief should be granted by the High Court rather than directing the petitioner(s) to challenge the rejection of their nomination papers by way of filing an election petition.

5. Keeping in view the advance copy served, Mr. Rahul Rampal, Addl. A.G. Punjab has put in appearance and submits that the assertion being raised at the hands of the petitioner(s) is that this Court should decide whether the petitioner(s) have encroached upon any land of the village or not so as to treat them eligible to contest the elections of Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that once, a competent authority after inquiry has passed a speaking order dated 05.12.2025 (Annexure P/10) attributing encroachment of land at the hands of the petitioner(s), disputing the same creates a disputed question of fact which even otherwise cannot be dealt by the Court in a writ petition and therefore, the writ petition is even otherwise liable to be dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that rejection of nomination papers is a ground as envisaged under Section 100 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1994 Act’) for filing election petition and, therefore, the remedy which is available to the petitioner(s) of filing an election petition so as to challenge and prove that the grounds mentioned in the impugned orders dated 05.1