##PAGE1##

104 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CWP-23570-2023 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 01.04.2026

Devender Singh & Anr ... Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Haryana & Anr ... Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI

Present : Mr. Karanvir Hooda, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG Haryana for respondent No.1.

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate and

Ms. Sharvi Dadhwal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. The present Civil Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 31.05.2023 (Annexure P-11) whereby the Divisional Commissioner, Rohtak, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Jai Singh & Ors. [2022 (2) RCR (Civil) 803], allowed the revision filed by respondent No.2 - Municipal Corporation, Rohtak - under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as applicable to the State of Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1961 Act’) and consequently set aside the orders dated 26.11.1985 (Annexure P-1) and

04.08.1986 (Annexure P-2).

2. Briefly, the facts relevant to the present lis are that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners herein, namely, Umed Singh, was the original owner in possession of land comprised in Khewat No.1137,

YOGESH SHARMA

2026.04.02 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh

CWP-23570-2023 (O&M) 2

Rect. No.25//13, 14, 17, 18, 23 and 24 admeasuring 48 kanals 0 marla located at Village Sunarian Kalan, Hadbast No.101, District Rohtak, Haryana. The Gram Panchayat, Sunarian Kalan filed a petition under Section 7 of the 1961 Act seeking eviction of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, namely, Umed Singh, from the aforesaid land. Since Umed Singh claimed title over the said land, the petition was converted to a title suit under Section 13-A of the 1961 Act by the Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, Rohtak. The said suit was dismissed vide order dated 26.11.1985 (Annexure P-1) and the land in question was held to be in ownership of Shamlat Panna Mehtan and Umed Singh was held to be in cultivating possession of the land since the year 1944-45. Aggrieved by the said order, the Gram Panchayat preferred an appeal before the Collector. The Collector upheld the findings of the Assistant Collector 1^st Grade and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 04.08.1986 (Annexure P-2). A civil suit was also filed by Umed Singh, predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners herein, for permanent and mandatory injunction which was allowed vide the judgment and decree dated 03.02.2006 (Annexure P-3) and Umed Singh was declared to be owner in possession of the land in question being a shareholder of Shamlat Panna Mehtan. The Gram Panchayat aggrieved by the said judgment and decree preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court which appeal was dismissed vide the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2007 (Annexure P-4). Still not satisfied, a regular second appeal was preferred being RSA-4187-2008 which was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 14.05.2009 (Annexure P-5). The said order attained finality inasmuch as the same was not challenged before the Supreme Court. In 2010 a notification was issued under the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 including the sabha area of the Gram Panchayat within

YOGESH SHARMA

2026.04.02 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh

CWP-23570-2023 (O&M) 3

the municipal limits. The Municipal Corporation, Rohtak issued three notices bearing Nos.753, 754 and 755 dated 12.11.2021 (Annexures P-6 to P-8) to the petitioners stating therein they were in illegal possession of the suit land and directing them to vacate and hand over possession of the same. A civil suit was filed by the petitioners being CS No.201 of 2022 titled as “Devender Singh &