121 IN TH Raj Kumar a State of Har CORAM: Present: HARKESH Haryana su decision da 1998, titled PWD (IB), for the sam dismissing t [2] appears on [3] Priyanka’s agrees with [4] same terms IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR RFA Date umar and another Versus Haryana HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HAR None for the appellants. Mr. Abhinash Jain, Deputy Adv for the respondent. **** KESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) At the outset, learned counsel submits that the present appeal dated 23.07.2024 passed by this titled “Smt. Priyanka W/O Ish Ku IB), Ambala.”, whereby the appeal e same notification / purpose / sing the appeal(s) filed by the State o Despite the case having been rs on behalf of the appellant(s). After going through the ju ’s case (supra) as well as the s with the assertion of the learned cou Consequently, the present app terms as Smt. Priyanka’s case (sup UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH RFA No. 2418 of 2000 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.02.2026 ...Appellants ...Respondent HARKESH MANUJA Advocate General, Haryana unsel for the respondent-State of peal is squarely covered by the is Court in RFA No. 2320 of h Kumar & Ors Versus LAC ppeals filed by the landowner(s) village, was allowed, while tate of Haryana. been called twice/thrice, no one he judgment passed in Smt. s the present case, this Court ed counsel for the respondent. nt appeal is disposed off in the (supra). DINESH KUMAR 2026.02.24 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
       -2-     [5] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed off.
February 23, 2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) ‘dk kamra’ JUDGE

    
    DINESH KUMAR 2026.02.24 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document