CWP/29497/2026 of RAVINDER Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS on 10 September 2026

1. CWP-29497-2026

Ravinder

... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

... Respondents

2. CWP-29504-2026

Umed

... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

... Respondents

Date of decision : 10.09.2026

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE DIVYA SHARMA

Present: Mr.Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate

for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Pradeep Prakash Chahar, Addl.A.G. Haryana for respondents no.1 to 5.

Mr. S.P. Chahar, Advocate for respondent no.6.

VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)

1. The present order shall dispose of two writ petitions i.e., CWP- judgment

29497-2026 titled as “Ravinder vs. State of Haryana and others” and CWP- 29504-2026 titled as “Umed vs. State of Haryana and others”

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the petitioner(s) as well as learned counsel for the respondents, CWP-29497-2026 is taken up as lead case. The prayer made in the CWP-29497-2026 is as under:- “WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 18.08.2026 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar in Executive Revision No.16874, the appellate order dated 20.05.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by the District Collector, Hisar and the ejectment order dated 13.02.2025 (Ex-parte order) (Annexure P-1) passed by the Assistant Collector First Grade, Hansi; and for issuance of an appropriate writ/ order restraining the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner or demolishing/interfering with his residential house situated over the disputed site measuring approximately 101.88 square yards forming part of Khewat No.661//558, Khatauni No.752, Khasra No.318, Village Rampura, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar; and for all consequential reliefs. The petitioner further place on records the common order dated 03.09.2026 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana in ROR Nos.372 and 373 of 2026 dismissing the revisions for want of statutory jurisdiction, thereby leaving no further efficacious departmental remedy.”

3. Similar prayer has been made in the other writ petition.

4. In both the cases, the land in question is situated in khewat no.661//558, khatauni no.752, khasra no.318, village Rampura, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar and as per the findings of the authorities, the same is described in the jamabandi for the year 2019-20 to be “abadi deh Wasideh”.

judgment

The authorities have stated that in accordance with the provision of Section 2(g)(4a) of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as “1961 Act”), vacant land which falls in abadi deh, irrespective of the fact that as to whether it is used for common purpose or not would fall within the definition of shamilat deh. This Court has also opined the same in CWP-11799-2026 decided on 03.07.2026 titled as “Dalwinder Singh vs. Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala Cantt. And others.”

5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has submitted that in case the land vests with the Panchayat, then also, the petitioner(s) who had constructed his house on the same, has right to purchase the same under Section 5A(1A) of the 1961 Act, which provision was incorporated by virtue of the Amendment Act of the year 2024. It is submitted that in the said circumstances, the petitioner(s) would give up his challenge to the eviction order, but prays that the petitioner(s) be granted liberty to move an application before the Gram Panchayat for purchase of the land in question and the Deputy Commissioner be directed to consider the said application in accordance with law and it is further submitted that, till the time the same is considered finally, status quo with respect to possession be maintained.

7. Learned counsel for the State and the Gram Panchayat have submitted that the petitioner(s) would have to comply with the provisions of Section 5A(1A) as well as the SOP, which has been issued for the application of the petitioner(s), to be considered.

judgment

8. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances and the fair stand taken on behalf of the petitioner(s) in both the writ petitions as well as learned counsel for respondents no.1 to 5 and 6, the present writ petitions are disposed of with the following observations / directions:- i) The impugned orders are upheld as the challenge to the same has not been pressed. ii) It would be open to the petitioner(s) in both writ petitions to file an application for purchase of land in question under Section 5A(1A) of the 1961 Act, as amended in the year 2024, to the Gram Panchayat within a period of 15 days from today. iii) In case respondent No.6-Gram Panchayat passes a resolution in favour of the petitioner(s), then, the said resolution be forwarded in accordance with the settled procedure and the Deputy Commissioner is directed to pass a final order on the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt of recommendations, if any. iv) It is made clear that, in case the Gram Panchayat does not recommend the case of the petitioners, then, no further decision would be required to be taken at the end of Deputy Commissioner.

v) Till the time, the Gram Panchayat does not consider the case of the petitioners, status quo with respect to possession be maintained and in case Gram Panchayat recommends the case judgment in favour of the petitioners, then, status quo order would continue till the time the final decision is taken by the Deputy Commissioner.

vi) It would, however, be open to respondents no.7 and 8 to move an application for recalling the present order in case respondents no.7 and 8 are aggrieved of the present order.

vii) It is made clear that the said interim order would not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the authorities would consider the application filed by the petitioners independently, in accordance with law.

(VIKAS BAHL)

JUDGE

(DIVYA SHARMA)

JUDGE September 10, 2026. Davinder Kumar

Whether speaking / reasoned

Yes/No

Whether reportable

Yes/No judgment