CWP-19891-2001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 223 CWP-19891-2001 Date of decision : 09.07.2026 Laihna Singh and others ...... Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Pankaj Mulwani, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate for respondent No.6. **** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral) 1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioners sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing of impugned order dated 26.11.2001 passed by respondent No.2. 2. The dispute is between the landlord and tenant. The landlord sought eviction of the tenant under Section 14-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. The tenant was ordered to be ejected by the Assistant Collector for non-payment of rent. In appeal, the Collector upheld the order, which was further upheld by the Commissioner. 3. On revision preferred by the tenant, the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, vide impugned order set aside the orders passed by the authorities. Possession was ordered to be restored to the tenant which had already been handed over to the landlord in execution DINESH KUMAR of the eviction orders. 2026.07.13 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19891-2001 4. On 01.02.2002, this Court passed the following order:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the authority Sansar Chand vs. Nanak Chand 1982(1)R.C.R.207 cited by learned counsel for respondent No.6 is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the attorney was competent to appear. There was nothing for the landlord to depose from his personal knowledge as it was alleged that respondent No.6 used to deposit the amount in the Bank through Bank challans. The same had not been produced and in such circumstances, the attorney was the proper witness to appear on behalf of the landlord. He further contended that the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, was not competent to order restitution of possession as it was to be done by the Court at the first instance. For this contention, he has placed reliance on The State Bank of Saurashtra Chitranjan Rangnath Raja and another AIR 1980 S.C.1528. In view of this authority, the operation of the impugned order Annexure P-4 is stayed till further orders.” 5. For the last 24 years, the aforesaid order has remained in operation. 6. Counsel for respondent No.6 Mr. Bhag Singh submits that respondent No.6 has not contacted him. 7. In view thereof, this Court finds that having remained out of possession for almost 25 years, respondent No.6 may have reconciled to the situation. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts, order dated 01.02.2002 is made absolute. However, liberty is granted to respondent No.6. to move an appropriate application, if he so wishes. 9. Disposed off, accordingly. (PANKAJ JAIN) 09.07.2026 JUDGE Dinesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether Reportable : No DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.13 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document