CWP-37514-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 105 CWP-37514-2025 Date of decision: 27.08.2026 CHAINCHAL MASIH AND OTHERS ….Petitioners Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVINDRA SINGH CHAUHAN Present: - Mr. Jagdish Singh Mahal, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Shruti, AAG, Punjab. **** JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the impugned order dated 22.11.2023 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.4, whereby the allotment of 5 marla plots to the petitioners has been cancelled. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were allotted 5 marla plots under the Scheme for providing 5 marla plots to Schedules Castes and poor families of the village Narad, Tehsil Dinanagar. He further submitted that after the allotment of the plots, the same have been cancelled by respondent No.4 vide impugned order dated 22.11.2023 (Annexure P-2). He further submitted that no proper notice has been issued to the petitioners and even otherwise also, in the POONAM RANI 2026.09.02 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-37514-2025 -2- aforesaid impugned order, the details of the persons including the petitioners, have been mentioned in a tabulated form, whereby in the 2nd and 3rd columns, it is stated to be invalid and constructed houses, whereas no specific reason has been prescribed and by just making an entry to be stated as a constructed house would not mean that the plots already allotted to the petitioners should have been cancelled. To substantiate his argument, he referred to the letter/provision dated 01.10.2021 itself, which has been annexed along with the writ petition as Annexure P-4 and referred to the aforesaid eligibility and terms and conditions for the beneficiaries at paragraph No.1(5) that if any family having already 5 marla plot and his son is further married and does not have any house or residence plot, then the married son can be given plot upto 5 marla under the Scheme. He further submitted that in this way, an exception has been carved out in the Scheme itself and the respondents were under an obligation atleast to consider the Scheme in toto and as to whether the case of the petitioners fell within the aforesaid category or not. He also submitted that a reasonable opportunity of hearing ought to have been given and reasons ought to have been reflected in the order, which is absent in the impugned order and therefore, the order may be set aside. 3. Learned State counsel submitted that she has brought the record of the present case and submitted that to the aforesaid extent on facts that the impugned order does not reflect the reasons, there can be no dispute with regard to the same. She further submitted that in the aforesaid order, in 2nd column, it is stated to be invalid and in the 3rd column, it has been stated that POONAM RANI 2026.09.02 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-37514-2025 -3- as to whether there were constructed houses or not. She also submitted that the conditional benefits were given. 4. After hearing learned Counsels for the parties, we are of the considered view that once the plots have been allotted to the petitioners, being eligible, then in case, any such exercise is to be undertaken for the purpose of cancellation, an adequate opportunity ought to have been given to the petitioners. Apart from the above, in case, at the time of the consideration of cancellation, specific reasons ought to have been assigned in the order because once a plot has been allotted to a poor person, then in case, it is sought to be cancelled, it visits with civil consequences and affects the rights of the persons concerned and cancellation of a plot already allotted should be taken seriously and since reasons are the soul of an order, we are of the considered view that the soul is absent in the present impugned order. 5. We are of the considered view that so far as the argument raised by learned State counsel that the conditional benefits were given is concerned, the same is misconceived in view of the fact that whatever it may be when an order is passed for the purpose of cacellation of a plot, it has to be backed by reasons and not otherwise. Therefore, the plea taken by learned State counsel is rejected. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.11.2023 (Annexure P-2) is hereby set aside. Liberty is granted to the respondent-State to issue fresh process, in case they wish to proceed against the petitioners for cancellation of plots in accordance with law, by giving an adequate opportunity of hearing. POONAM RANI 2026.09.02 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-37514-2025 -4- Needless to say that when an order is to be passed, the same should be backed by the detailed reasons. (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI) JUDGE (PRAVINDRA SINGH CHAUHAN) 27.08.2026 JUDGE P. Seth i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No POONAM RANI 2026.09.02 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document