IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H 214 KIRAN BALA STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Kuldeep Tiwari, J. (Oral) 1. grievance from the impugned order dated 29.03.2023 (Annexure P the Collector has sought quashing of the order (supra). 2. dispute qua the property is already pending before the Civil Court concerned. 3. effect that she is in possession of 100 squa yards. He further submits that the said plot being co was preferred before the Human Rights Commission, however, there, the matter was compromised to the effect that the petitioner will share a possession of 100 square yards each on the said plot in dispute (200 square yards). 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H AT CHANDIGARH KIRAN BALA VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate with Mr. Anuj Mahla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Naveen S. Panwar, DAG Haryana. Mr. Ajay Kumar Kansal, Advocate with Ms. Garima Kansal, Advocate for respondent No.3. *** Kuldeep Tiwari, J. (Oral) The petitioner is daughter-in-law of respondent No.3, having grievance from the impugned order dated 29.03.2023 (Annexure P the Collector-cum-President, Senior Citizen Maintenance Authority, Panipat, has sought quashing of the order (supra). Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submit dispute qua the property is already pending before the Civil Court concerned. Respondent No.3 has provided for the suit for declaration to the effect that she is in possession of 100 square yards yards. He further submits that the said plot being co was preferred before the Human Rights Commission, however, there, the matter was compromised to the effect that the petitioner will share a possession of 100 square yards each on the said plot in dispute (200 square yards). IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H ARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-11044-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.09.2025 ..... Petitioner ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate with Mr. Naveen S. Panwar, DAG Haryana. Mr. Ajay Kumar Kansal, Advocate with law of respondent No.3, having grievance from the impugned order dated 29.03.2023 (Annexure P-2) passed by President, Senior Citizen Maintenance Authority, Panipat, Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that civil dispute qua the property is already pending before the Civil Court concerned. Respondent No.3 has provided for the suit for declaration to the re yards, out of total 200 square yards. He further submits that the said plot being co-shared property, an appeal was preferred before the Human Rights Commission, however, there, the matter was compromised to the effect that the petitioner, and respondent No.3, will share a possession of 100 square yards each on the said plot in dispute (200 Date of Decision: 08.09.2025 Petitioner ..Respondents law of respondent No.3, having 2) passed by President, Senior Citizen Maintenance Authority, Panipat, that civil Respondent No.3 has provided for the suit for declaration to the out of total 200 square , an appeal was preferred before the Human Rights Commission, however, there, the t No.3, will share a possession of 100 square yards each on the said plot in dispute (200 HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2025.09.10 18:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11044 4. factum of the compromise was considered by the Civil Court concerne the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 22.05.2023, parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding suit property. 5. more than 100 square yards upon the property instant petition may be disposed of with the observation that both the parties will maintain status quo till the final decision of the civil suit preferred by respondent No.3. 6. though factually is not opposed, counsel for respondent No.3 that so far as the compromise of the parties is concerned, he has no in this regard since respondent No.3 has already preferred consideration, 7. parties shall maintain status quo upon the parties are at liberty to establish concerned. 8. 9. disposed of. 08.09.2025 harpreet 2 11044-2023 (O&M) He further submits that on the basis of the compromise, the factum of the compromise was considered by the Civil Court concerne ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 22.05.2023, parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding suit property. He further submits that the petitioner has never intended to claim more than 100 square yards upon the property instant petition may be disposed of with the observation that both the parties will maintain status quo till the final decision of the civil suit preferred by respondent No.3. He further submits that the submissions made by res though factually is not opposed, counsel for respondent No.3 that so far as the compromise of the parties is concerned, he has no in this regard. In view of the above, this Court is of the ince respondent No.3 has already preferred consideration, therefore, the order of eviction may not be given effect. Instant petition is disposed of with the observation that both the parties shall maintain status quo upon the suit property in the question. Both the parties are at liberty to establish their respective Ordered, accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Whether Reportable : He further submits that on the basis of the compromise, the factum of the compromise was considered by the Civil Court concerned, and ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 22.05.2023, parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding suit property. He further submits that the petitioner has never intended to claim more than 100 square yards upon the property in question, and therefore, instant petition may be disposed of with the observation that both the parties will maintain status quo till the final decision of the civil suit preferred by He further submits that the submissions made by respondent No.1, though factually is not opposed, counsel for respondent No.3, however, submits that so far as the compromise of the parties is concerned, he has no instructions . In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that ince respondent No.3 has already preferred a civil suit which is pending may not be given effect. with the observation that both the suit property in the question. Both the their respective claim before the Civil Courts pplication(s), if any, also stand(s) (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No He further submits that on the basis of the compromise, the d, and ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 22.05.2023, parties were He further submits that the petitioner has never intended to claim in question, and therefore, instant petition may be disposed of with the observation that both the parties will maintain status quo till the final decision of the civil suit preferred by , however, submits instructions view that civil suit which is pending with the observation that both the suit property in the question. Both the claim before the Civil Courts pplication(s), if any, also stand(s) (KULDEEP TIWARI) HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2025.09.10 18:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document