IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Krishan Lal through his legal heirs and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents

1. The date when the judgment is reserved 27.11.2025 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 09.12.2025 3. The date when the judgment is uploaded 09.12.2025

4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced

5. The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full Not applicable judgment, and reasons thereof CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Rohiteshwar Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana.

LAPITA BANERJI, J.

The prayer in the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing/setting-aside of the impugned order dated November 18/20, 2020 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, district Kaithal, order dated March 29, 2022 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Collector, district Kaithal-respondent No.3 and the order dated June 12, 2025 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Karnal Division, Karnal- respondent No.2. The petitioners have also prayed for stay of operation of the impugned orders during the pendency of the writ petition.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

i) In 2017, Satpal Singh-respondent No.5 filed an application under Section 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulations) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1961 Act”), for eviction of the petitioners from the land situate in Khasra No.168, 680, 690, 694 in Khevat No.836, Khatauni No.917 situated in village Sirsal, Tehsil Pundri.

ii) It was alleged in the eviction petition by respondent No.5 that due to the petitioners’ illegal encroachment of gair mumkin raasta the villagers were facing a lot of hardship while commuting. Despite repeated requests the petitioners did not remove the encroachments and therefore, it became absolutely necessary for respondent No.5 to file the petition under Section 7(2) of the 1961 Act.

iii) The petitioners filed a written statement to the petition under Section 7(2) of the 1961 Act wherein it was specifically pleaded that the petitioners had a civil Court decree in their favour which held that it was the respondent No.5 who was in illegal occupation of the Gram Panchayat land and not the petitioners.

iv) As a counter blast to the civil suit filed by the petitioners, the respondent No.5 filed the instant application under Section 7(2) of the 1961 Act which was decided against the petitioners by the Assistant Collector on November 18/20, 2020. The appeal filed by the petitioners against the said order was dismissed by the Collector on March 29, 2022. The revision petition from the impugned orders dated November 18/20, 2020 and March 29, 2022 was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner vide order dated June 12, 2025.

v) Under challenge in the present writ petition are the aforesaid orders dated November 18/20, 2020, March 29, 2022 and June 12, 2025 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned orders”).

SUBMISSIONS

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the impugned orders suffer from complete non-application of mind as the same have been passed without taking into consideration the judgment dated February 20, 2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal, in Civil Suit No.108 of 2015 titled ‘Krishan Lal v. Satpal and others’ and the judgment dated September 26, 2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal in Civil Appeal No.30 of

2016 titled ‘Satpal v.Krishan Lal and others’.

4. It is further submitted that no proper opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners by the Assistant Collector since the impugned order dated November 18/20, 2020 was passed when the entire country was affected by COVID-19 pandemic. It is also