IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT RAJ KUMAR BALI STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS CORAM: Present : HARSH BUNGER, J. (ORAL) Constitution of India, quashing the order dated 11.12.2020 (Annexure P Tehsildar, Amritsar 2. 333.32 yards area comprised in plot No afore-said area, 200 yards is stated to be in remaining area of 133. that son of the petitioner inherited by petitioner’s daughter (grandson) and petitioner’s wife Ananya Bali. It is further stated that in the year 2008, petitioner transferred in favour of the petitioner and subsequently, the share of his IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RAJ KUMAR BALI Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Mr. Gursimran Singh Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Nirmaljit Singh Diwana, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab. HARSH BUNGER, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present petition filed under Art Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of quashing the order dated 11.12.2020 (Annexure P Tehsildar, Amritsar-2, District Amritsar. Briefly, the petitioner claims that h 32 yards area comprised in plot Nos said area, 200 yards is stated to be in remaining area of 133.32 yards is stated to be that son of the petitioner expired in the year 2002 inherited by petitioner’s daughter-in-law namely, Divya (grandson) and petitioner’s wife Ananya Bali. It is further stated that in the year 2008, petitioner’s wife Ananya Bali, also expired and her share was transferred in favour of the petitioner and subsequently, the share of his Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-17123-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.07.2025 …Petitioner Versus …Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Mr. Gursimran Singh Bhatia, Advocate Mr. Nirmaljit Singh Diwana, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab. Prayer in the present petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 11.12.2020 (Annexure P-6) passed by the petitioner claims that his son had purchased s.153 and 154. However, out of the said area, 200 yards is stated to be in khasra No.57/22 and stated to be in khasra No.57/21. It is stated expired in the year 2002, whereupon, his share was namely, Divya Bali, Chaitanya Bali (grandson) and petitioner’s wife Ananya Bali. It is further stated that in the ’s wife Ananya Bali, also expired and her share was transferred in favour of the petitioner and subsequently, the share of his of 3 2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.07.2025 icles 226/227 of the certiorari for 6) passed by the son had purchased ut of the and the . It is stated his share was Bali (grandson) and petitioner’s wife Ananya Bali. It is further stated that in the ’s wife Ananya Bali, also expired and her share was transferred in favour of the petitioner and subsequently, the share of his GURPREET KAUR 2025.07.02 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh p. 2 daughter-in-law Divya Bali was purchased by petitioner’s daughter namely Kamayani Bali. It is stated that the grandson and daughter of the petitioner have given power of attorney to the petitioner regarding the afore-said property. However, respondent No.5 (Manraj Singh) is trying to forcibly and illegally take possession of 50% of the land in khasra No.57/22 on the basis of an alleged Will dated 04.04.1996 executed by one Sh. Mohinder Singh son of Shangara Singh. It is submitted that respondent No.5 had filed a Civil Suit for declaration and joint possession and obtained an ex-parte judgment and decree dated 30.07.2009 (Annexure P-4) whereby, a decree of joint possession has been issued. 2.1 It is stated that on the basis of afore-said judgment and decree dated 30.07.2009 (Annexure P-4), respondent No.5 submitted an application for demarcation (Annexure P-5); whereupon, the Tehsildar passed an impugned order dated 11.12.2020 (Annexure P-6) for appointing a Commission for carrying out demarcation. It is stated that the afore-said communication (Annexure P-6) was challenged by some residents of the locality by filing a writ petition i.e. CWP-20964-2022 wherein, vide order dated 14.09.2022 (Annexure P-7), the order of demarcation was ordered to be kept in abeyance. 2.2 In the backdrop of the afore-mentioned circumstances, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition, on the plea that despite the stay being granted by this Court for carrying out demarcation, the revenue officials have conducted the demarcation and respondent No.5 is trying to take forcible possession of the land in question. 3. Heard. GURPREET KAUR 2025.07.02 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh p. 3 4. Apparently, the petitioner was not a party to the earlier writ petition i.e. CWP-20964-2022. In case, the petitioner was aggrieved against any threat to his possession or against the demarcation ordered vide order dated 11.12.2020 (Annexure P-6) then he should have approached the Civil Court for seeking injunction and/or joined the petitioner in CWP-20964-2022. Concededly the impugned order dated 11.12.2020 (Annexure P-6) was passed way back in the year 2020 and the present writ petition has now been filed in the year 2025, which is clearly barred by delay and laches. 5. That apart, once the order of demarcation dated 11.12.2020 (Annexure P-6) had been ordered to be kept in abeyance in CWP No.20964-2022, then for any violation of the said order, the appropriate remedy was to file a contempt petition. 6. Keeping in view the above, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same and is, hereby, dismissed. 7. All pending application/s, if any, shall also stand closed. July 01, 2025 (HARSH BUNGER) gurpreet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No GURPREET KAUR 2025.07.02 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh