RSA-5005-2013 [109] Whether only Whether full Jangir Kaur The State o Coram : Present: PANKAJ J CM-13490 [1] satisfied th delay of 18 [2] appeal is co RSA-5005 [3] [4] original po respondent 013 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT CHANDIGA RSA-5005 Reserved o Pronounce Uploaded only operative part of the judgment is pro full judgment is pronounced? ir Kaur and others versus State of Haryana and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA Mr. Rajesh Nagpal, Advocate Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DA **** KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) 13490-C-2013 For the reasons recorded in fied that the appellants have made su 18 days in filing of the appeal. Application stands allowed an al is condoned. 5005-2013 (O&M) Plaintiffs are in second appeal. For the convenience, parties h nal positions in the civil suit, i.e. app ndents as ‘defendants’. T OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 5005-2013 (O&M) rved on 20.11.2025 ounced on 23.12.2025 aded on 23.12.2025 s pronounced? No Yes …Appellants ….Respondents PANKAJ JAIN ocate for the appellants. ar, DAG, Haryana. ded in the application, this Court ade sufficient cause for condonation and delay of 18 days in filing of th ppeal. rties hereinafter are referred to by the .e. appellants as the ‘plaintiffs’ and 1 ourt is ation of g of the by their and the RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.12.23 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5005-2013 [5] are entitled out in para [6] bighas wa installation No.49 dated assessed at possessed b compensati 1959. The years. [7] possession Gurcharan Singh filed land owner restored ba back of the [8] [9] klin for th however cl As per the d to get the 013 (O&M) Plaintiffs filed a suit for decla ntitled for possession of land measurin n para No.1 of the plaint. As per the case of the plain as was acquired by the Punjab G llation of brick-klin for construction o 9 dated 26.09.1956. Compensation in sed at ₹1206.66. The acquired lan essed by Bachan Singh, the predecesso ensation was paid to Bachan Singh. . There is no brick-klin in existence Plaintiffs being LRs of Bac ession back. As per the plaintiffs, haran Singh etc. whose land was acq filed a suit for possession. The same owners by Supreme Court of India an red back to the land owners. Plaintif of the acquired land. Suit was contested by the defen Acquisition of the land for the for the construction of Bhakra can ver claimed that entire compensation er the defendants, plaintiffs have no rig t the possession of the acquired land ba r declaration claiming that the plaintif asuring 07 bighas 10 biswas as detaile plaintiffs, a total land measuring 4 jab Government for the purpose o ction of Bhakra canal vide Notificatio in respect of total acquired land wa ed land included the land owned an ecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs. N . Bhakra canal was constructed stence at the site for last more than 4 Bachan Singh are entitled to g tiffs, some of the co-sharers, name as acquired along with that of Bacha e same has been decided in favour of th dia and possession of the land has bee laintiffs accordingly sought possessio e defendants. for the purpose of installation of brick a canal is not disputed. Defendan sation was paid to the original owner no right, title or interest vested in the land back from the defendants. 2 laintiffs detailed ring 40 pose of ification and was ned and iffs. No ucted in than 40 to get namely Bachan ur of the as been ssession f brick- fendants owners. in them RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.12.23 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5005-2013 [10] the Courts Forest Dep the absenc necessary p [11] recorded by Land Acqu him. In vi department RSA-2330 State thro Supreme C 1997 titled others’, re [12] squarely co in ‘Dalip reported a another ve (Civil) 217 [13] gone throug [14] precedents 013 (O&M) Suit filed by the plaintiffs has ourts below, holding that the land st Department, plaintiffs are not entit absence of Forest Department. T ssary party, the suit is bad for non-join Learned counsel for the app ded by the Courts below. He submi Acquisition Collector. State of Hary In view thereof, suit cannot be dism rtment in possession of the land. On 2330-1995 titled as ‘Gurcharan Sin through Collector, Hisar and ot eme Court of India, upholding the sa titled as ‘State of Haryana and othe rs’, reported as 2004(12) SCC 540. Per contra, learned State Co rely covered by a judgment rendered b alip Singh and others versus rted as 2004(2) RCR (Civil) 176 an her versus State of Haryana and oth 217. I have heard learned counsel f through records of the case. Facts are not much in dispute. dents relied upon by the rival parties. ffs has been ordered to be dismissed b land having been handed over to th t entitled to get the possession back t. The successor department bein joinder of necessary parties. e appellants has assailed the finding submits that the land was acquired b f Haryana has been impleaded throug dismissed for non-impleadment of th . On merits, he relies upon decision o an Singh and others versus Haryan nd others’ and judgment passed b the same in Civil Appeal No.5143 others versus Gurcharan Singh an ate Counsel submits that the issue ered by a Division Bench of this Cou sus State of Haryana and others and that in ‘Dr. Vijay Khosla an nd others‘, reported as 2007 (3) RC unsel for the parties and have careful spute. There are two separate threads o arties. The issue came before this Cou 3 issed by r to the back in t being findings uired by ugh t of the ision of aryana ssed by 5143 of gh and issue is is Court others’, and 3) RCR arefully reads of is Court RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.12.23 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5005-2013 in RSA-23 plaintiffs ob 013 (O&M) 2330-1995, this Court while allow tiffs observed as under:- “3. Briefly, stated, therefore, the The land was originally acq of brick-kiln for manufacture of th Canal. The purpose for which accomplished, and the land was no kiin. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the orig the heirs of the original owner of t being leased out for agricultural pu admitted position, now the quest entitled to get back the land in ter and the instructions referred abov the Additional District Judge dis plaintiffs have no right that can b observed that the plaintiffs ha discriminated in not returning the returned to the other persons simi way of writ petition in the High Cou 4. At this juncture, it wou instructions and paragraphs of the reliance has been placed by the pl administration manual are as follow "493: Disposal of land no permanent occupati Govt. is no longer re Deputy Commissio responsible for the Commissioner. It alienated without Government. There auction. But as a m willing to restore a persons from whom refunding the amoun granted for compu lowered, if necessa e allowing the appeal preferred by th e, the admitted position is as follows: y acquired by the Govt. for the constructi of the bricks to be used for in the Bhak hich the land was acquired, has be s no more required for the purpose of bric original owners while plaintiffs 3 to 6 a of the land in dispute. The suit land is no al purpose from year to year. In view of th estion arises whether the plaintiffs a n terms of the Land Administration Manu above. The trial Court decreed the suit b dismissed the suit by observing that t an be enforced by way of suit. He furth have failed to show that they we g the land to them. Though the land w similarly situated, and the remedy was Court. would be relevant to refer to certa f the said Administration Manual on whi e plaintiffs. The relevant paragraphs in t ollows:- no longer required. Where the land in t pation of any department of the Punj er required it should he handed over to t issioner of the District, who becom the disposal of it under the orders of t It may not, however, be permanen out the previous sanction legal ere is no legal bar on it being put in a matter of grace, Government is usua re agricultural and pastoral land to t hom it acquired it or to their heirs on the mount paid as compensation lean the 15 mpulsory acquisition. The price may cessary on account of deterioration, 4 by the ruction hakra been f brick- 6 are is now of this ffs are anual uit but at the further were d was was by certain which in the in the Punjab to the comes of the nently al he ut into usually to the n their e 15% ay be on, or RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.12.23 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5005-2013 013 (O&M) enhanced in the rare the use to which improvement must b The fact that the lan acquisition, can whe is not an improveme the rise in the mark stated above are ve them in their entire remote descendants where the circumsta common. When for e price was paid to th the rise in the value exceptionally large, referring such cases sufficient material special terms to the land was acquired." "494: Case in which pref adjoining fields. In t size or shape are pr owners of the adjo prepared to conside option of purchasing an outsider is prepa Deputy Commission the acceptance of an 495. Action when the hei wish to purchase. If be traced, or if they decline to accept the further referral to proposed to alienat way." rare case of land having been Improved hich the Government had put it. T ust be one affecting the quality of the lan e land which was unirrigated at the time when relinquished, be watered by a can vement of this sort. Considering how gre arket value of the land has been the term e very liberal. It is not necessary to ado ntirety where the persons concerned a ants or relations of the original holders a mstances of the case are at all out of t for example, no price, or merely a nomin to the owner in the First Instance, or wh alue of land in the neighborhood has be rge, these facts should he pointed out wh cases for orders. That the Govt. may ha before it to decide whether to offer a the heirs of the persons from whom th ed." preference should be given to owners . In the case of plots from which from the e practically of no value to anyone but t adjoining fields, the government will sider proposals for giving these owners t sing at the market value. The mere fact th repared to outbid them should not deter t sioner from recommending to Governme f any fair offer which they may make." heirs and neighboring proprietors do n e. If the heirs of the original owners cann they or the proprietors of adjoining lan t the terms approved by the Government to Government will be necessary if it enate the land permanently In some oth 5 ved by t. The e land. time of canal great terms adopt ed are rs and of the ominal r when s been t when y have fer any m that ers of their but the ill be ers the ct that ter the rnment do not cannot lands ent, a if it is other RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.12.23 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5005-2013 013 (O&M) 5) The Financial Commissione 87 of the Financial Commissioner S "When agricultural or past public purposes by any dep required for such purposes, general considerations men Land Administration Manua 6. Briefly stated, therefore, th which were acquired for a public p that public purpose, just like a c disposed of in terms of above refer Nothing was placed before me on plaintiffs would be otherwise no therefore, clearly follows that in te plaintiffs would be entitled to return the Additional District Judge comm on the ground that the plaintiffs can It may be stated that the total re referred above, and the Standing Government has adopted as a ma original owner under the circum There seems no good reason, the getting the benefit of that policy. If of the policy thus adopted by the G other similarly situated cases, the p direction from the court for enfor good reason to discriminate the pla under the said policy. 7. The appellate Court also respect of the grievance regardi plaintiffs was by way of writ petiti one of the modes to enforce the p But, if the plaintiffs filed civil suit denied that relief simply because s by way of writ petition also. It is against the plaintiffs, but is also c ioner has also Standing Orders. Paragra ner Standing Order No.28 is as follows: pastoral land is permanently acquired f department of the Govt. and is no long ses, the disposal of it shall be guided by t mentioned in paragraphs 493 to 495 of t anual which are reproduced below. e, the admitted position is that the lan lic purpose, when not required any more f a case in this matter, is expected to referred policy adopted by the Governme on behalf of the State to indicate that t e not entitled to return of the land. in terms of the policy referred to above, t eturn of the land in question. In my opinio ommitted error in non-suiting the plainti s cannot claim the land as a matter of rig al reading of the paragraphs 493 to 49 nding Order 28, would indicate that t matter of policy to return the land to t cumstances covered by those paragraph , therefore, to deprive the plaintiffs fro y. If the plaintiffs are unjustifiably depriv the Government and followed In respect the plaintiffs can come to the Court to se nforcement of the said policy. There is e plaintiffs and deprive them of the benef also committed error in thinking that arding discrimination, the remedy of t etition. May be that writ petition would he policy and seek redress from the Cou suit to obtain some relief, they cannot use such a relief could have been availab It is not only a question for discriminati lso called upon the State, to show why t 6 agraph red for longer by the of the lands ore for to be nment. hat the nd. It, ve, the pinion, aintiffs f right. o 495, at the to the raphs. s from prived pect of to seek e is no enefits hat in f the uld be Court. not be ailable ination hy the RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.12.23 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5005-2013 [15] Court. A observed as 013 (O&M) policy adopted by it cannot be ma The Government by forming the po an understanding to the person's th land under certain conditions and c those conditions and circumstance terms of the paragraphs and the S of that, I allow the appeal.” The matter was taken by St Affirming the judgment passed rved as under:- “9. In this case, the Suit had be 1 and 2 were the heirs of one Pur land and that respondents 3, 4, 5 a had the other half share. The reproduced hereinabove wherein returned either to the original owne on the basis of these respondents namely, Puran Singh and Jagir Sin to be represented through his sons of Jagir Singh still continues to be Therefore, in our view, the appeal h 10. That brings us to the chal Court. It has been submitted that do not create any right in favour o the land. There can be no dispute same time, it is clear that the Gove must implement that policy decisio the Government to discriminate bet case it has been shown that the decision and released land in favo brought on record to show why the of the respondents. It is admitted th Government. Thus, even though th to claim back possession, we still been clearly shown that the Govern e made applicable in case of the plaintif e policy, as stated above, has almost giv 's that they would be entitled to get back t and circumstances. Since the plaintiffs ful tances, they are entitled to get the land he Standing Orders referred above. In vie by State of Haryana before Suprem assed by this Court, Supreme Cou d been filed on the footing that responden Puran Singh who had a half share in t , 5 and 6 were heirs of one Jagir Singh w he claim was based on paragraph 4 ein it is mentioned that the land is to owner or to their heirs. Therefore, the cla nts being the heirs of the original owne Singh. The estate of Puran Singh continu ons i.e., respondent Nos.1 and 2. The esta o be represented by respondents 3, 4 and eal has not abated. challenge against the decision of the Hi hat Standing Order 28 and paragraph 4 ur of any person to get back possession pute with that proposition. However, at t overnment, having taken a policy decisio cision fairly and uniformly. It is not ope e between persons similarly situated. In th the Government has acted on the poli favour of other persons. Nothing has be y the policy should not be applied in favo ed that the land is no longer required by t h there may be no right in the responden still do not think it fit to interfere as it h vernment is acting discriminately.” 7 intiffs. t given ack the s fulfill and in n view upreme e Court ndents in the h who h 493 to be claim wners, ntinues estate and 6. e High ph 493 sion of at the cision, pen to In this policy s been favour by the ndents it has RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.12.23 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5005-2013 [16] Just about up for cons and others ‘Gurchara Bench. Div 013 (O&M) The issue was decided by the about a month thereafter i.e. on 18.1 r consideration before the Division Be others’ case (supra). Judgment ren charan Singh’s case (supra) could n . Division Bench observed as under: “5. The primary and, in fact, t the petitioners is that the petition land, subject matter of dispute, existence. Later instructions ann cannot whither away the right of established when application was learned counsel for the petitioners issuing fresh instructions for a retrospective in nature and, therefo have been decided on the basis of S 6. When this matter came up f passed the following orders:- " The question that ha as to whether the instruction for return of the land had which were in force when be passed, would apply in th law and then argue the matt List again on 7.11.2003." 7. In support of his contention Bench judgment of this Court in CW v. State of Punjab and another), by the Supreme Court on 12.11.20 18.12.2003, the precise issue croppe Bench of this Court in ‘Dalip Sing nt rendered by the Supreme Court ould not be brought to the notice of th under:- ct, the only contention raised on behalf itioners has applied for re-transfer of t te, when Standing Order No. 28 was annulling the Standing Order aforesa t of the petitioners, as their right has be was made. It has further heen urged ners that change brought about in law r auctioning such surplus land is n erefore, the case of the petitioners ought of Standing Order No. 28. up for hearing before us on 21.10.2003, w t has been mooted in the present petition ctions in vogue at the time when applicati had been filed or the changed instruction en the order for release of the land was in this case. Counsel seeks time to study t matter. tion, learned counsel relies upon a Divisi CWP No. 5578 of 1996 (Surinder Kum er), decided on 13.1.1997. Short judgmen 8 1.2003. cropped p Singh ourt in e of the half of of the was in resaid s been ged by law by is not ught to 03, we ition is ication ctions, was to udy the ivision Kumar ment RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.12.23 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5005-2013 013 (O&M) relied upon by learned counsel i thus:- "The regularisation of the the ground that the inst withdrawn by way of in petitioner's right for regula the instructions were issue considered within a rea instructions dated 18.1.1 retrospective effect nor a r could have ordinarily be respondents are directed to regularisation in terms of i months in accordance with petition is disposed of. ” 8. ” 8. It is significant to note tha the case aforesaid mentioned that could not be taken away on cha examined the matter more deeply a if, perhaps, in the present case the for re-transferring the land, in case view, Standing Order No. 28 reli concession and the same cannot pa well settled and, therefore, we a provisions of the Land Acquisition public purpose by issuing notificat Act, and after payment or deposit taken, the land vests with the Go Despite this clear position of law, which may deal with re-vesting t owners, that was rendered surplu Government, free from all encum concession alone and no more. In Order cannot partake the charact citizen. sel in Civil Writ Petition aforesaid rea the petitioner has been declined solely instructions dated 18.1.1995 have be f instructions dated 26.2.1996. In fa egularisation fructified on 18.1.1995 wh issued and the cases were required to reasonable period. The withdrawal 8.1.1995 on 26.2.1996 were not w r a right once conferred on the petition been withdrawn. In view of this, t d to consider the case of the petitioner f of instructions dated 18.1.1995 within s with law. With the said direction, the w that Hon'ble Division Bench dealing w that right once conferred on the petition change of instructions. We would ha ply and the judgment, as reproduced abov e there was a right vested in the petitione case found to be surplus. In our consider relied upon by learned counsel is only ot partake the character of a right. It is t we are not making any reference to t ition Act, that once land is acquired for fication under Sections 4 and 6 of the sa osit of the compensation, possession is al Government free from all encumbranc law, if there may still be some instructio ng title of property in the erstwhile lan rplus, even though having vested with t ncumbrances, same has to be held as e. In any case, as aforesaid, this Standi racter of law conferring any right upon 9 reads lely on been fact, when to be al of t with itioner is, the ner for hin six e writ g with itioner have above, tioners idered only a t is too to the for a e said is also rances. uctions land- ith the as a anding upon a RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.12.23 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5005-2013 013 (O&M) 9. The view that we have tak Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandr v. State of Maharashtra and othe judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Co Bhaskaran Pillai and another, AI Supreme Court in Chandraguada somewhat circumstances, has held "Shri Naik, the learned petitioners, contended tha petitioner sought restitutio resolution of the State Gove the Government directed th first for any other public pu given back to the erstw enforcement of the said Go could not be dismissed on t He also seeks to rely upon c by the High Court in Government resolution. We justified in making directi erstwhile owners when the the Municipality free fro concerned with the validity petitions. It is axiomatic purpose would be utilised fo of it was intended for the or that any land which remaine erstwhile owner to whom according to the market va Under these circumstances refusing to grant relief in bo In Bhaskaran Pillai's case that "the sheet-anchor of th the executive order issued alienation of the land. The action as invalid in the lig taken would be fortified by a decision andragauda Ramgonda Patil and anoth others, (1996) 6 SCC 405 and yet anoth Court in State of Kerala and others r, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2703. Hon'b uada Ramgonda Patil's case (supra), eld as under :- ned Senior Counsel appearing for t that in the second writ petition, t tution of the possession pursuant to t Government dated 10.10.1973 under whi ed that the surplus land was to be utilis c purpose and in the alternative it was to rstwhile owners. Since he had soug d Government resolution, the writ petiti on the ground of constructive res judica on certain orders said to have been pass in conformity with enforcement of t . We do not think that this Court would rection for restitution of the land to t the land was taken way back and vested from all encumbrances. We are n idity of the notification in either of the w tic that the land acquired for a pub ed for any other public purpose, though u e original public purpose. It is not intend ained unutilised, should be restituted to t hom adequate compensation was pa et value as on the date of the notificatio nces, the High Court was well justified in both the writ petitions." case (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court he of the Government to sustain the action ued by the Government for permission f The High Court has declared the executi light of the Kerala Land Assignment A 10 sion of nother nother hers v. on'ble ra), in or the n, the to the which tilised s to be sought etition dicata. passed of the uld be to the sted in re not he writ public gh use tended to the s paid cation. fied in rt held tion is ion for cution nt Act, RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.12.23 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5005-2013 [17] Vijay Kho 013 (O&M) 1960. The High Court has contravention of the Act. Th present case, what we find consonance with the provisi Under these circumstances, declaring the executive orde 10. In view of decision rend referred to above, it is, thus, clear t which may run counter to the pro invalid. In other words, even if transfer the land even at a time existence, the said order could Government on the ground that the with the provisions of the Act. ” The said view was followed b y Khosla’s case (supra) to observe as “7. This court had an occasion by Financial Commissioner, Harya in Dalip Singh and others v. State (Civil) 176 (P&H) (DB). Dalip Si had been acquired for a brick-ki release after the project was over. T "In our considered view, S learned counsel is only a co the character of a right. It i not making any reference to Act, that once land is acq notification under Sections payment or deposit of the c the land vests with the Go Despite this clear position instructions which may dea erstwhile land-free from all concession alone and no has pointed out that the assignment is t. Thus, this appeal by special leave.In t find in that the executive order is not ovision of the Act and is, therefore, inval nces, the Division Bench is well justified order as invalid." rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court, ear that, if there were to be any instructio e provision of the Act, the same would if the Government was to refuse to r ime when Standing Order No. 28 was ould have well been defended by t t the Standing Order was not in consonan wed by another Division Bench in ‘D rve as under:- sion to consider Standing Order 28 issu aryana regarding release of acquired la State of Haryana and others, 2004(2) RC p Singh's case was also one in which la kiln and the petitioners had sought er. The Division Bench held as under :- w, Standing Order 28 relied upon by t a concession and the same cannot parta . It is too well settled and, therefore, we a e to the provisions of the Land Acquisiti acquired for a public purpose by issui tions 4 and 6 of the said Act, and aft the compensation, possession is also take Government free from all encumbranc sition of law, if there may still be som deal with revesting title of property in t all encumbrances, same has to be held no more. In any case, as aforesaid, th 11 t is in .In the not in nvalid. ified in rt, as uctions uld be to re- was in y the onance Dr. issued land ) RCR h land ght its by the artake we are isition issuing d after taken, rances. some in the held as d, this RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.12.23 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5005-2013 [18] issue would laid down b Bench in and anoth paragraph 4 favour of a proposition (supra) as w [19] Once it has 013 (O&M) Standing Order cannot part right upon a citizen." Reliance was also placed on Chan v. State of Maharashtra and others and others v. Bhaskaran Pillai and 1997 Supreme Court 2703. In the f the owners was declined. In the la be put to public auction. 8. Consequently, we reach the if not being used for the original p not be returned to the land owners Division Bench in Dalip Singh's ca the Government could refuse to r defended by the Government on th not in accordance with the provisio Considering the aforesaid pre would be covered in favour of the a down by Supreme Court in ‘Gurchar h in Dalip Singh and others’s case another’s case (supra) rightly hel raph 493 of the Land Administration ur of any person to get back possessio osition finds approval from Supreme C as well. However, issue involved is ‘whether a Government havin implement the same selec classification? Answer is ‘No’ and so has b it has come on record that Governm partake the character of law conferring a handragauda Ramgonda Patil and anoth thers, 1996(6) SCC 405 and State of Kera i and others, 1998(1) RCR (Civil) 651: A the former case return of unutilised land e latter case untilised land was directed the conclusion that the acquired land ev nal purpose of brick-kiln, could in any ca ners on the basis of Standing Order 28. T 's case had gone to the extent of saying th to retransfer land and the order could n the ground that the Standing Order w visions of the Land Acquisition Act. ” id precedents, this Court finds that th f the appellants in view of ratio of la rcharan Singh’s case (ibid). Divisio case (supra) and in ‘Dr. Vijay Khos held that Standing Order 28 an ration Manual do not create any right ssession of the acquired land. The sa reme Court in Gurcharan Singh’s cas lved is beyond that. The question is aving taken up a Policy Decision ca electively without any reasonab has been held by the Supreme Cour vernment acted upon a Policy Decisio 12 ng any nother Kerala 1: AIR land to cted to d even y case 8. The ng that uld be er was that the of law Division Khosla 28 and right in he said case on is n can onable e Court. ecision RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.12.23 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5005-2013 and release that the pla relief to th enshrined [20] decree pass of law laid [21] allowed. terms of th the defenda sustain and there was n [22] [23] disposed of 23.12.2025 ‘R. Sharma' 013 (O&M) released land in favour of similarly sit the plaintiffs in the present case be den f to the present appellants would be rined in the Constitution of India as a f In view of the above, this Co passed by the Courts below cannot b w laid down by the Supreme Court in ‘ Accordingly, the present app ed. They are held entitled to get th s of the law laid down by the Suprem efendants regarding non-impleadmen in and sans merit. Once, State of Ha was no need for the plaintiffs to imple Suit filed by the plaintiffs succ All pending miscellaneous ed off. .2025 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable arly situated persons, there is no reaso be denied the same relief. Denying th uld be denying them right to equali as a fundamental right. this Court finds that the judgment an annot be sustained being in teeth of rat urt in ‘Gurcharan Singh’s case (ibid) t appeal preferred by the plaintiffs get the possession of the land back upreme Court. The objection raised b dment of Department of Forest cann of Haryana itself is a party in the su implead the Departments. fs succeeds. Decree be drawn. neous application(s), if any, stand (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 13 reason ying the equality and of ratio ibid). ntiffs is back in aised by t cannot the suit, stands RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.12.23 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document