LPA-1721-2017 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (205) State of Haryana and others Ram Singh (since deceased) through his LRs CORAM: Present: ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, CM-3715-LPA explained. condoned. CM-160-LPA of deceased respondent is allowed. detailed in paragraph No.2 of the application, are brought on record and impleaded as legal representatives of deceased/respondent. 2017 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH State of Haryana and others Versus Ram Singh (since deceased) through his LRs HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana for the appellants. Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for LRs of respondent. **** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (ORAL) LPA-2017 The delay of 106 days in filing the appeal has been satisfactorily Accordingly, the delay of 106 days in filing the Application stands disposed of LPA-2019 Application is for bringing on record legal heirs/representatives of deceased respondent-Ram Singh. For the good and valid reasons assigned in the application, same . Legal representatives of deceased respondent detailed in paragraph No.2 of the application, are brought on record and impleaded as legal representatives of deceased/respondent. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-1721-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision : 30.07.2025 …Appellants Versus Ram Singh (since deceased) through his LRs ...Respondents ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana (ORAL) The delay of 106 days in filing the appeal has been satisfactorily Accordingly, the delay of 106 days in filing the appeal, is disposed of. Application is for bringing on record legal heirs/representatives For the good and valid reasons assigned in the application, same Legal representatives of deceased respondent-Ram Singh, as detailed in paragraph No.2 of the application, are brought on record and impleaded as legal representatives of deceased/respondent. 1 The delay of 106 days in filing the appeal has been satisfactorily appeal, is Application is for bringing on record legal heirs/representatives For the good and valid reasons assigned in the application, same Ram Singh, as detailed in paragraph No.2 of the application, are brought on record and MANPREET SINGH 2025.08.04 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment LPA-1721-2017 (O&M) file. LPA-1721-2017 1. 16.03.2017, passed by learned Single Judge, whereby, the writ petition filed by the respondent came to be allowed. favour of the respondent has been set 2. formulated by the State of Haryana, on 11.07.1988, as per which, unauthorized possession of individuals was to be regularized by allotting land to them, where substantial constructions though unauthorized. amended policy, such land which was in possession of the State, were excluded for the purpose of allotment. with regard to year 1982. record that substantial constructions were also raised by the respondents. factual report The allotment however came to by cancelled by the authorities concerned, on 19.09.2003, on the ground that initial allotment made in favour of the respondent/petitioner on 18.10.1988 purpose, by the State. 3. already made by the writ petitioner over the land allotted to him. It was also found that the constructions on the date of inspection 2017 (O&M) Amended memo of parties is taken on record. Registry is directed to attach it at appropriate place in the case 2017 This appeal is preferred by the State, challenging an order dated 16.03.2017, passed by learned Single Judge, whereby, the writ petition filed by the respondent came to be allowed. The cancellation of allotment made in favour of the respondent has been set aside. Undisputed facts of the case are that a policy came to be formulated by the State of Haryana, on 11.07.1988, as per which, unauthorized possession of individuals was to be regularized by allotting land where substantial constructions had already been made by them though unauthorized. This policy was amended on 11.08.1988 amended policy, such land which was in possession of the State, were excluded for the purpose of allotment. Certain clarifications were also made to the extent of construction, which was 1982. The allotment of the petitioner was not disturbed, and it is on record that substantial constructions were also raised by the respondents. factual reports in that regard have been taken note of by learned Single Judge. The allotment however came to by cancelled by the authorities concerned, on , on the ground that initial allotment made in favour of the respondent/petitioner on 18.10.1988, was con , by the State. Learned Single Judge has found that the constructions were already made by the writ petitioner over the land allotted to him. It was also found that the constructions on the date of inspection Amended memo of parties is taken on record. ected to attach it at appropriate place in the case This appeal is preferred by the State, challenging an order dated 16.03.2017, passed by learned Single Judge, whereby, the writ petition filed The cancellation of allotment made in aside. Undisputed facts of the case are that a policy came to be formulated by the State of Haryana, on 11.07.1988, as per which, unauthorized possession of individuals was to be regularized by allotting land had already been made by them This policy was amended on 11.08.1988. In the amended policy, such land which was in possession of the State, were Certain clarifications were also made extent of construction, which was required to be made prior titioner was not disturbed, and it is on record that substantial constructions were also raised by the respondents. The in that regard have been taken note of by learned Single Judge. The allotment however came to by cancelled by the authorities concerned, on , on the ground that initial allotment made in favour of the , was contrary to the policy framed for the Learned Single Judge has found that the constructions were already made by the writ petitioner over the land allotted to him. It was also found that the constructions on the date of inspection were found more than 15 2 ected to attach it at appropriate place in the case This appeal is preferred by the State, challenging an order dated 16.03.2017, passed by learned Single Judge, whereby, the writ petition filed The cancellation of allotment made in Undisputed facts of the case are that a policy came to be formulated by the State of Haryana, on 11.07.1988, as per which, unauthorized possession of individuals was to be regularized by allotting land had already been made by them, . In the amended policy, such land which was in possession of the State, were Certain clarifications were also made made prior titioner was not disturbed, and it is on The in that regard have been taken note of by learned Single Judge. The allotment however came to by cancelled by the authorities concerned, on , on the ground that initial allotment made in favour of the trary to the policy framed for the Learned Single Judge has found that the constructions were already made by the writ petitioner over the land allotted to him. It was also were found more than 15 MANPREET SINGH 2025.08.04 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment LPA-1721-2017 (O&M) years old, and thus, were found to have been substantially made before the off. It is for this reason and finding the allotment policy, learned Single Judge cancellation of allotment of land made in favour of the respondents. 4. State argues that the allotment of land in favour of the respondent/pe was since not rightly cancelled and interference in such order was not 5. such submission. 6. perused the initial allotment order dated 18.10.1988, as well as, subsequent cancellation cancellation order that the land allotted to the respondent/petitioner was possession of the State. R the possession over the allotted land, was with the respondent/petitioner, from much prior to the year 198 cancellation of allotment by the State We are thus Judge, in allowing the writ petition of the respondent. 7. entire allotment money has not been paid by the respondent/petitioner, apparently, on account of pendency of the aspect, we provide payable by the r 2017 (O&M) years old, and thus, were found to have been substantially made before the It is for this reason and finding the allotment policy, learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and quashed the cancellation of allotment of land made in favour of the respondents. Thus aggrieved, the State is before us. Learned counsel for the State argues that the allotment of land in favour of the respondent/pe not in conformity with the provisions of the policy, as such, it was rightly cancelled and interference in such order was not Learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner, however, opposes such submission. With the aid of learned counsel for the appellants, we have perused the initial allotment order dated 18.10.1988, as well as, subsequent cancellation order. There is no indication in the allotment order cancellation order that the land allotted to the respondent/petitioner was possession of the State. Rather, the evidence the possession over the allotted land, was with the respondent/petitioner, from in point of time and substantial constructions were also made prior to the year 1982, over such allotted land. cancellation of allotment by the State authorit We are thus in respectful agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge, in allowing the writ petition of the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant/State, entire allotment money has not been paid by the respondent/petitioner, apparently, on account of pendency of the aspect, we provide that the State shall calculate the amount found due and payable by the respondent/petitioner, through his legal representatives (since years old, and thus, were found to have been substantially made before the cut It is for this reason and finding the allotment to be in consonance with the has allowed the writ petition and quashed the cancellation of allotment of land made in favour of the respondents. Thus aggrieved, the State is before us. Learned counsel for the State argues that the allotment of land in favour of the respondent/petitioner rovisions of the policy, as such, it was rightly cancelled and interference in such order was not called for. Learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner, however, opposes aid of learned counsel for the appellants, we have perused the initial allotment order dated 18.10.1988, as well as, subsequent . There is no indication in the allotment order or in the cancellation order that the land allotted to the respondent/petitioner was evidence on record clearly indicates that the possession over the allotted land, was with the respondent/petitioner, from point of time and substantial constructions were also made prior 2, over such allotted land. That being so, we find that the uthorities, was clearly unsustainable. with the view taken by the learned Single Judge, in allowing the writ petition of the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant/State, lastly contends that the entire allotment money has not been paid by the respondent/petitioner, apparently, on account of pendency of the dispute. In order to address this that the State shall calculate the amount found due and through his legal representatives (since 3 cut in consonance with the has allowed the writ petition and quashed the Thus aggrieved, the State is before us. Learned counsel for the titioner rovisions of the policy, as such, it was Learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner, however, opposes aid of learned counsel for the appellants, we have perused the initial allotment order dated 18.10.1988, as well as, subsequent or in the cancellation order that the land allotted to the respondent/petitioner was in on record clearly indicates that the possession over the allotted land, was with the respondent/petitioner, from point of time and substantial constructions were also made prior hat being so, we find that the was clearly unsustainable. with the view taken by the learned Single contends that the entire allotment money has not been paid by the respondent/petitioner, In order to address this that the State shall calculate the amount found due and through his legal representatives (since MANPREET SINGH 2025.08.04 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment LPA-1721-2017 (O&M) the original allottee has died). Such computation will be furnished to the respondent/petition shall deposit such amount within a furth 8. reasonable interest 9. 10. July 30, 2025 Manpreet 2017 (O&M) the original allottee has died). Such computation will be furnished to the respondent/petitioner within a period of one month. shall deposit such amount within a further period of three months, thereafter It goes without saying that the State reasonable interest on the defaulted amount, Subject to the observations aforesaid, this appeal is Pending miscellaneous applications, also stands disposed of. ( , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable the original allottee has died). Such computation will be furnished to the er within a period of one month. The respondent/petitioner er period of three months, thereafter that the State will be entitled to collect on the defaulted amount, in terms of the scheme. Subject to the observations aforesaid, this appeal is disposed of Pending miscellaneous applications, also stands disposed of. (ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA JUDGE (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 4 the original allottee has died). Such computation will be furnished to the respondent/petitioner er period of three months, thereafter. will be entitled to collect disposed of. ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) ) MANPREET SINGH 2025.08.04 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment