IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 28.11.2025 Dalel Singh and others ….Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CWP-6879-2014 Sadhu Ram and others ….Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CWP-8372-2014 Kesar Singh and others ….Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CWP-8510-2014 Om Parkash and others ….Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents Shamsher Singh and others ….Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CWP-8561-2014 Manpuri and others ….Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CWP-25277-2014 Molu Ram and others ….Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CWP-7587-2016 Jai Pal and others ….Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present: Mr.Rajinder Goel, Advocate for the petitioner(s)

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr.Pradeep Chahar, DAG Haryana and Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG Haryana and Mr. Kushaldeep K. Manchanda, Advocate for the State of Haryana Mr.Anupam Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sukhpal Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 to 56 Mr.Hardeep Singh Dhillon, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 In CWP-6879-2014 Mr.Jai Parkash Sharma and Mr.Krishan Mohan, Advocates for the respondent Gram Panchayat in CWP-8561-2014 and CWP-25277-2014 Mr. Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Anamika Sheoran, Advocate for the applicant/ respondent in CWP-6879-2010 and CWP-8510-2014 DEEPAK SIBAL, J.

1. The petitioners challenge the vires of Rule 6-A, inserted through noti:ication dated 13.12.2013, by the State of Haryana in the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as applicable to the State of Haryana (for short – the 1961 Act). Vires of Section 5-A of the 1961 Act, on account of insertion thereto the :irst and second proviso, alongwith its explanation, through noti:ication dated

09.10.2013 by the State of Haryana is also under challenge.

2. The aforesaid impugned provisions have been challenged primarily on the ground that through them the Gram Panchayats within the State of Haryana have been permitted to lease out land vested in it virtually free of cost and that too for a period of 99 years in favour of a class of persons, including those who are in unauthorized and continuous cultivating possession upto the prescribed cut off date. As per the petitioners the impugned provisions, permitting the Gram Panchayat, as above, are in con:lict with the objects of the 1961 Act, as per which the lands vested in the Gram Panchayat are to be utilized only for the bene:its of the inhabitants of the villages concerned. According to the petitioners, the impugned provisions also contradict Rule 6 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 which mandates that the land of the Gram Panchayat is to be leased out only by way of auction and that such lease, for agricultural purposes, cannot exceed a period of two years.

3. Since the fate of Shamlat Deh lands in all the villages of the State of Haryana was at stake and such lands were the primary source of income for the Gram Panchayats, a Coordinate Bench, through its order dated 28.04.2016 referred the following issues to be determined by a larger Bench:-

“(i) Whether the impugned provisions inserted in the Act and the Rules are derogatory to the Principal Act and its legislative policy contained in Section 5(1)?

(ii) Whether the Gram Panchayat or the inhabitants of the village can be divested of the bene#its of shamlat deh land through perpetual lease-hold rights on payment of a nominal lease amount which is totally a farce?

(iii) Whether shamlat deh land can be leased out without public auction thereby depriving the Gram Panchayat from its potential source of income which will have a direct impact on the entire village community for want of developmental works?

(iv) Whether the imp