Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 49913 (PNJ)

NAFE SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

CWP/11549/2025 · 2025-05-16

Deepak Sibal, Lapita Banerji

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ( Sr. No. 106 ) CWP No.11549 of 2025 Date of decision: 16.05.2025 Nafe Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Ms. Pinki Mehla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana. * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) (1) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that through separate representations dated 29.04.2025, the petitioner has applied to Gram Panchayat – Gunha and the District Collector, Kaithal for purchasing the land of the Gram Panchayat held to be in their illegal possession and that such representations have been made on the strength of Section 5A of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 read with Rule 15B of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964. (2) In the light of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner restricts her claim to the issuance of directions to respondent No.4 – Deputy SUNIL YADAV 2025.05.19 18:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order. Chandigarh CWP No.11549 of 2025 [2] Commissioner, Kaithal and respondent No.7 – Gram Panchayat village Gunha to take an early decision on her aforesaid representations. (3) Learned State counsel has no objection to the acceptance of the afore alternate prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. (4) Accordingly, at this stage, without commenting on the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.4 – Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal and respondent No.7 – Gram Panchayat village Gunha to take decision on the aforesaid representations moved by the petitioner, by passing a speaking order and after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned, preferably within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (5) Needless to add that the decision so taken be communicated to the petitioner and if the same is not to the satisfaction of the petitioner, he would be at liberty to challenge the same, in accordance with law. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE 16.05.2025 ( LAPITA BANERJI ) sunil yadav JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SUNIL YADAV 2025.05.19 18:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order. Chandigarh