CWP-29428-2025 (O&M) -1- 112 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-29428-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:15.07.2026 GURJIT KAUR AND ANOTHER ....Petitioner (s) Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS .....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present: Mr. Gurinder S. Lalli, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Shruti, AAG, Punjab. **** JASGURPREET SINGH PURI , J. (Oral) 1. The present Civil Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 11.07.2025 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Barnala in view of the order passed by this Court in CWP-14814-2025 (Annexure P-2), with a further prayer to direct the respondents to conduct the measurement of the public passage with the police help to remove the encroachment. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the present is a third round of litigation filed by the petitioners on the basis of the grievance raised by them for a number of times before the respondents. He submitted that earlier the petitioners had filed a writ petition bearing CWP-14814-2025, which was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide Annexure P-1 on 21.05.2025 with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Barnala to take a decision on the legal notice submitted by the petitioners by passing a speaking order. RAKESH KUMAR 2026.07.17 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-29428-2025 (O&M) -2- Thereafter, since the aforesaid order was not complied with, the petitioners filed a contempt petition bearing COCP-3108-2025 before this Court, which was disposed of on 18.07.2025 since an order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Barnala at that point of time. He submitted that now by way of the impugned order dated 11.07.2025 (Annexure P-7), the Deputy Commissioner, Barnala has passed an order which is totally erroneous and against the facts. 3. To substantiate his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the only short controversy involved in the present case was with regard to the encroachment made by the inhabitants of the village on the rasta belonging to the Panchayat and the grievance of the petitioners was only that since other inhabitants of the village are encroaching upon the panchayat land, at least a demarcation has to be conducted before they start constructing on the land so as to ascertain the correct factual position with regard to the same. He further submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Barnala had constituted a Committee comprising the concerned Panchayat Department and the Revenue Department but as per the impugned order, the aforesaid Committee reported that there was no need for demarcation because as per the revenue record, the pahi was 11 feet and on the spot, it was found to be 11 feet and therefore, demarcation was not required. He submitted that the allegation made by the petitioners was pertaining to encroachment of the Panchayat land by the inhabitants of the village and the same can be ascertained only by way of demarcation and no such finding can be given by any officer without demarcation of the land and therefore, his limited prayer is only to the extent that the impugned order may be set aside and the Deputy Commissioner, Barnala may be directed to RAKESH KUMAR 2026.07.17 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-29428-2025 (O&M) -3- get the land demarcated and thereafter, to pass a fresh order after associating the petitioners as well as the Gram Panchayat. 4. On the other hand, Ms. Shruti, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions from Mr. Gurdeep Singh, P/S Mehal Kalan, has submitted that so far as the aforesaid aspect is concerned that the land was not demarcated before the aforesaid impugned order was passed, she has no objection in case an order is passed with regard to getting the land demarcated within any time frame work, which will serve the interest of justice. 5. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 11.07.2025 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Barnala is liable to be set aside. 6. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.07.2025 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Barnala, is hereby set aside. The Deputy Commissioner, Barnala is directed to pass a fresh order after getting the land, in respect of which the petitioners have raised the present dispute, demarcated with the coordinated efforts of the concerned Revenue Department as well as the Panchayat Department by associating the petitioners and the Gram Panchayat and thereafter, to pass an order in accordance with law. The needful be done within a period of four weeks from today. (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI) JUDGE (SANJIV BERRY) 15.07.2026 JUDGE rakesh Whether speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RAKESH KUMAR 2026.07.17 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment