CWP-15013-2016 [1] 216 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-15013-2016 Date of decision: 21.07.2026 Pritam Kaur and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present: None for the petitioners. Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana. Mr. H.S. Dhillon, Advocate for respondent Nos.6 to 13. **** VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) 1. In the head note of the writ petition, following prayers have been made:- “Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the action of the respondents making proposal for allotment of 100 sq. yards plot to the Economic Weaker person of Village Kalsa without considering the case of the present petitioners to release the land in question in view of Rule 6A of Punjab Village Common Lands Act as they are cultivating the land in question under “Grow More Food Scheme” for the last more than 50 years in view of the judgments passed by this Hon’ble Court in the cases of the present petitioners CWP No.24382 of 2015 dated 20.11.2015 PAWAN KUMAR 2026.07.23 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-15013-2016 [2] and 24198 of 2015 dated 19.11.2015 and issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to allot the land in question by carving out the plot measuring 100 sq. yards for weaker section under the Mahatma Gandhi Gram Basti Yojna and further directing not to dispossess the present petitioners from the land in question who are cultivating the land in question since 1950 in view of the judgment dated 18.12.2014 passed in CWP No.25979 of 2014 titled as Kehar Singh versus State of Haryana and others (Annexure P-13) who had obtained the land under Grow More Food Scheme and the writ petition was disposed off to maintain status quo with regard to delivery of possession for 100 sq. yards plot to the landless weaker section inhabitants of the village under the scheme in lieu of the notification dated 13.12.2013 whereby Rule 6A was inserted in the Rules 1965 vide judgment dated 18.12.2014 and further directing the respondents to decide the application of the present petitioners for granting the land in question for 99 years lease as the petitioners fulfill the eligible criteria as they are cultivating the land in question for the last more than 50 years. Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner against the respondents.” 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.6 to 13 has pointed out that the Full Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.11.2025 passed in CWP-12571-2014 titled as “Dalel Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others”, along with connected matters, had disposed of the petitions, in which challenge has been made to Rule 6-A, PAWAN KUMAR 2026.07.23 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-15013-2016 [3] inserted through Notification dated 13.12.2013, by the State of Haryana in the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 as applicable to the State of Haryana, on the basis of the statement made by learned counsel for the State, to the effect that Notification dated 30.09.2025 has omitted the impugned Rule 6A of the 1964 Rules and through another Notification dated 01.04.2025, has also omitted the impugned first and second proviso, along with explanation to Section 5A of the 1961 Act. Paras 4 to 6 of the said judgment dated 28.11.2025 passed by the Full Bench of this Court are reproduced hereinbelow:- “4. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the parties were ad idem that the State, through its notification dated 30.09.2025 has omitted the impugned Rule 6A of the 1964 Rules and through another notification dated 01.04.2025, has also omitted the impugned first and second proviso, alongwith explanation to Section 5A of the 1961 Act, rendering the matter referred to be opined upon by us and in fact the writ petitions itself infructuous. 5. In the light of the above developments and the consensus between learned counsel for the parties, including the amicus curiae appointed by this Court, we are of the opinion that answering the afore quoted questions has been rendered unnecessary. 6. The main writ petitions have also been rendered infructuous and are therefore, disposed of as such.” 3. It is thus, submitted that in the said circumstances, the present writ petition has been rendered infructuous. 4. Today, none has appeared on behalf of the petitioners to PAWAN KUMAR 2026.07.23 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-15013-2016 [4] pursue the present writ petition. 5. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. 6. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to revive the same in case any cause survives. (VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE (SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE 21.07.2026 Pawan Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No PAWAN KUMAR 2026.07.23 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document