IN TH 211 Vaibhav D Chander Vikas Prad CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GU violation o Division Yadav vs. the judgme as “Surinde other conn issues rais asnwered i Surinder K instance ca COCP-4057-2024 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR COCP No.4057 o Date of decision hav Dhingra and others Versus nder Shekhar Khare, Chief Admin s Pradhikaran HSVP, Panchkula an AM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NI Mr. Rohan Moudgil, Advocate Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocat for the petitioners. Mr. Harmanjot Singh Gill, Ad for the respondents-HSVP. HI GUPTA J. (Oral) Present contempt petition tion of order dated 22.1.2014 (An Bench of this Court in CWP- v vs. State of Haryana and others”, w udgment dated 31.10.2013 passed in C urinder Kumar and others vs. State o r connected cases, it was directed tha raised in the instance cases, we fin red if the directions contained in par er Kumar's case (supra) are applie ce cases also. We order accordingl 1 UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH 4057 of 2024 (O & M) cision :-06.04.2026 …..Petitioners dministrator, Haryana Shehri ula and others …..Respondents E NIDHI GUPTA vocate for dvocate ill, Advocate ition has been filed alleging (Annexure P-1) passed by a -7694-2006 titled as “Urmil , whereby while relying upon d in CWP No.9321 of 2000 titled State of Haryana and others” and ed that “…With reference to the e find that the same shall stand para 24 of the order passed in pplied mutatis mutandis in the ingly. Since the parties are at VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.10 17.34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document variance w Section 4 o been taken constructio the date, sh in terms o however, n some of the for vital pu demolish s owner sha from the a of such ow got the lan to payment be underta plan of th constructed may consid if so requi property… the aforesa case (supra The said ap COCP-4057-2024 (O & M) ce with regard to the structures in ex n 4 of issuance of notification and no aken against any of the petitioners fo uction, we direct that constructions w te, shall be considered for the purpos s of order issued here-in-above. er, needs to be issued. It is pointed o f the residential houses might be loc al public utilities. If that is so and ish such a residential house, we di shall be given equivalent size of l he acquired land. This would be wit h owner to seek compensation for t land equivalent to the acquired lan ment of compensation for the acquir ertaken by the authorities after fina f the acquired land. It is furthe ucted portion has already been relea onsider the desirability of releasing equired, for the proper and useful …..” Learned counsel for the respo foresaid judgment dated 31.10.2013 p upra) was carried in appeal before th said appeals came to be disposed of v 2 in existence found at the time of d no action admittedly has ever rs for raising any unauthorized ons which are in existence as on rpose of passing release orders One clarificatory direction, d out by the State counsel that e located on the site earmarked and if it becomes imperative to e direct that the affected land of land by releasing the same e without prejudice to the right for the structure though having land, they shall not be entitled quired land. This exercise may finalization of the development rther clarified that wherever released by the authorities, they sing the additional open space, eful enjoyment of the released respondents has pointed out that 2013 passed in Surinder Kumar’s efore the Hon’ble Supreme Court. d of vide order dated 31.01.2018 VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.10 17.34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document passed in passed :- therefore was directe the landow hearing, an COCP-4057-2024 (O & M) ed in SLP No.15302-2014, whereby “6. After hearing lea at length, we are of th are such, in which certa released and it was photographs that a larg have already come up the fitness of the case, t consider the cases sym the land-owners and ta terms of the policy wit land, within a period o Till then, status quo maintained by the parti liberty to file their re weeks from today. 7. The directions pa are hereby set aside. Th the competent authorit by our setting aside th High Court. With the impugned order stands are partly allowed. Pe stands disposed of." Learned counsel for the r directions issued by the High C directed that the competent authority landowners sympathetically, after af ng, and take a decision objectively 3 hereby the following order was learned counsel for the parties of the opinion that the matters certain areas have already been was argued on the basis of large number of constructions up in the area. It would be in se, that the competent authority sympathetically, after hearing d take a decision objectively in with respect to release of the od of three months from today. quo as on today, shall be parties. The land owners are at r representations within three s passed in the impugned order e. The decision is to be taken by ority without being influenced e the directions passed by the the aforesaid directions, the ands modified and the appeals . Pending application, if any, the respondents submits that igh Court were set aside, and it hority shall consider the cases of ter affording an opportunity of ctively in accordance with the VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.10 17.34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document applicable for a limit Court wou competent the very f whereof is longer surv Supreme C no question the petition of. April 06, 2 Vijay Asija Whether spea Whether Repo COCP-4057-2024 (O & M) cable policy. It was further directed th limited period and that the impugn t would not influence the decisio etent authority. In view of the aforesaid deve very foundation of the order dated eof is sought through the present er survives, the same having been eme Court. Once the principal judgme uestion of its willful disobedience wou Consequently, no cause of ac etitioners for invoking the contempt ju Accordingly, the present conte Rule stands discharged. Pending application(s), if any , 2026 r speaking/reasoned Yes / No r Reportable Yes / No 4 cted that status quo be maintained mpugned directions of the High ecision-making process of the d development, it is evident that dated 22.01.2014, compliance esent contempt proceedings, no been set aside by the Hon’ble udgment itself has been nullified, e would arise. of action survives in favour of mpt jurisdiction of this Court. t contempt petition is dismissed. if any, shall also stand disposed ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.10 17.34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document