Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2018 DAILYLAW 5521 (PNJ)

RAM SWAROOP AND ANR v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

CWP/9050/2018 · 2026-07-22

Pankaj Jain

body2018

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Sr. No.: 232 Civil Writ Petition No.9050 of 2018 Date of Decision: July 22, 2026 Ram Swaroop & another ..... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana & others ..... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN PRESENT: - Mr. S.S. Sahu, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Pankaj Mulwani, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. V.D. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.10. PANKAJ JAIN, J (Oral) On 16.07.2026, this Court passed the following order: “Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were put to notice on 18.05.2016 and the watercourse was sanctioned on 19.05.2016. Thereafter, an FIR was lodged, and a joint statement under police pressure (Annexure P-6) was got recorded on 25.05.2016. Mr. Mulwani, Sr. DAG, Haryana shall, make sure that the record in original is available for the inspection of the Court on the next date of hearing. Adjourned to 22.07.2026. 2. Today, the original record has been produced. The Court has perused the record. From the same, it is evident that two applications were received by the authorities against the petitioners alleging demolition of the watercourse. Notice was issued for 25.05.2016. The respondents (applicants before the authorities) as well as the present petitioners got their statements recorded before the Sub Divisional Officer. The respondents admitted that the watercourse has been restored. To the same effect statement was suffered by AVIN KUMAR 2026.07.24 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.9050 of 2018 [2] the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners, however, disputes the same and submits that the statement was recorded under pressure. There is no such material on record to prove the said fact. This Court has no reason to ignore the statements of the parties recorded before the SDO. 3. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE July 22, 2026 avin Whether Speaking/ Reasoned: Yes/ No Whether Reportable: Yes/ No AVIN KUMAR 2026.07.24 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document