CWP No.33717 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Balkar Singh Versus State of Haryana and others 1. The date when the judgment is reserved 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 3. The date when the judgment is uploaded 4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced 5. The delay, if any of the pronouncement judgment, and reasons thereof CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana Mr. Keshav Mr. M. S. Kathuria, Advocate, For respondent No.7 LAPITA BANERJI, J. The prayer in the present petition filed under Article of the Constitution of India, of Certiorari for quashing (Annexure P-2) passed by the Assistant Collector 1 Shahabad-respondent No.4, order dated September 28, 2022 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Collector, Kurukshetra CWP No.33717 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO.3 Versus State of Haryana and others The date when the judgment is reserved date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced The delay, if any of the pronouncement judgment, and reasons thereof HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana Mr. Keshav Bhandari, Advocate for Mr. M. S. Kathuria, Advocate, For respondent No.7. LAPITA BANERJI, J. The prayer in the present petition filed under Article of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, is for issuance of a writ in the nature Certiorari for quashing impugned order dated February 24, 2020 2) passed by the Assistant Collector 1 respondent No.4, order dated September 28, 2022 (Annexure 4) passed by the Collector, Kurukshetra-respond IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CWP NO.33717 OF 2025 (O&M) ...Petitioner ...Respondents 13.01.2026 date when the judgment is pronounced 10.02.2026 The date when the judgment is uploaded 11.02.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is Full The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full Not applicable HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI , Advocate, Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana. Bhandari, Advocate for The prayer in the present petition filed under Articles 226/227 , is for issuance of a writ in the nature impugned order dated February 24, 2020 2) passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade-c um-SDO (C), respondent No.4, order dated September 28, 2022 (Annexure respondent No.3 and order dated SHALINI BHATIA 2026.02.11 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.33717 of 2025 September 16, 2025 (Annexure P Division, Ambala 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: i) The respondent N under Section 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter petitioner from a piece of land Khewat No.178, Khatoni No.268, Khasra No.61 situated in village Bibipur, Hadbast No.272 Block and Tehsil Shahabad, District Kurukshetra. ii) February 24, 2020 mumkin talab/johar possession of the petitioner and his brother respondent No.8. Therefore, the petitioner be evicted from the disputed land. iii) In the proceedings under Section 7(2) of the 1961 Act, respondent No.7 the same was allowed. the GP was acting in collusion and conspiracy with the petitioner and his brother and therefore, a spot inspection report should be called for. The said prayer was allowed by the AC and on spot inspection that was done on September 19, 2019 by th was found that the petitioner was in mumkin johar CWP No.33717 of 2025 September 16, 2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala-respondent No.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The respondent No.6-Gram Panchayat (GP) filed a Section 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter, referred to as “the 1961 Act”) for ejectment of the petitioner from a piece of land admeasuring Khewat No.178, Khatoni No.268, Khasra No.61 situated in village Bibipur, Hadbast No.272 Block and Tehsil Shahabad, District Kurukshetra. The Assistant Collector (AC) February 24, 2020 held that the disputed land had been recorded as mumkin talab/johar in the revenue records and the same was in illegal possession of the petitioner and his brother respondent No.8. Therefore, the petitioner and his brother were be evicted from the disputed land. In the proceedings under Section 7(2) of the 1961 Act, respondent No.7-Shish Pal filed an application to be impleaded as party and was allowed. It was alleged by the p the GP was acting in collusion and conspiracy with the petitioner and his brother and therefore, a spot inspection report should be called for. The said prayer was allowed by the AC and on spot inspection that was done on September 19, 2019 by the Gram Secretary, Gram Panchayat Bibipur, it was found that the petitioner was in illegal possession of 06 kanals of mumkin johar land in Khasra No.61 even though vide 6) passed by the Commissioner, Ambala The brief facts of the case are as follows: Gram Panchayat (GP) filed a petition Section 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, referred to as “the 1961 Act”) for ejectment of the admeasuring 06 kanals comprised in Khewat No.178, Khatoni No.268, Khasra No.61 situated in village Bibipur, Hadbast No.272 Block and Tehsil Shahabad, District Kurukshetra. (AC) vide impugned order dated held that the disputed land had been recorded as gair in the revenue records and the same was in illegal possession of the petitioner and his brother- Balbir Singh/proforma and his brother were directed to In the proceedings under Section 7(2) of the 1961 Act, private ation to be impleaded as party and It was alleged by the private respondent No.7 that the GP was acting in collusion and conspiracy with the petitioner and his brother and therefore, a spot inspection report should be called for. The said prayer was allowed by the AC and on spot inspection that was done on e Gram Secretary, Gram Panchayat Bibipur, it possession of 06 kanals of gair even though vide the demarcation SHALINI BHATIA 2026.02.11 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.33717 of 2025 report dated December 11, 2015 to be encroaching upon the GP land. iv) The petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the AC, filed an appeal before the Collector, Kurukshetra on March 18, 2020. v) Vide impugned order dated September 28, 2022, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Collector relying on the demarcation report dated December 11, 2015 which clearly indicated that the marlas of gair mumkin johar in Khasra no.61. Relying on the entry made in column Jamabandi for the year 2014 talaab/johar was owned by the GP, the petitioner being an illegal encroacher was lawfully directed to be evicted from the disputed land. vi) Thereafter, the Commissioner, Ambala division on or about November 29, 2022 which was dismissed vide Commissioner vii) The Commissioner that both the AC records and no valid ground could be with the said orders. Therefore, Commissioner CWP No.33717 of 2025 report dated December 11, 2015, the petitioner and his brother to be encroaching upon the GP land. The petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned order passed filed an appeal before the Collector, Kurukshetra on March 18, Vide impugned order dated September 28, 2022, the appeal the petitioner was dismissed by the Collector relying on the demarcation report dated December 11, 2015 which clearly indicated that the petitioner and his brother were gair mumkin johar land out of total land of in Khasra no.61. Relying on the entry made in column Jamabandi for the year 2014-15, it was reiterated was owned by the GP, the petitioner being an illegal was lawfully directed to be evicted from the disputed land. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Ambala division on or about November 29, 2022 which was dismissed vide impugned order dated September 16, Commissioner. The Commissioner dismissed the revision petition AC and the Collector had passed speaking orders based on and no valid ground could be urged by the petitioner for interfering with the said orders. Therefore, both the orders were upheld by the Commissioner. Page 3 of 12 petitioner and his brother were found The petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned order passed filed an appeal before the Collector, Kurukshetra on March 18, Vide impugned order dated September 28, 2022, the appeal the petitioner was dismissed by the Collector-respondent No.3 by relying on the demarcation report dated December 11, 2015 which clearly petitioner and his brother were in illegal possession of 12 total land of 06 kanals comprising in Khasra no.61. Relying on the entry made in column No.8 of the reiterated that since gair mumkin was owned by the GP, the petitioner being an illegal was lawfully directed to be evicted from the disputed land. petitioner filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Ambala division on or about November 29, 2022 which was impugned order dated September 16, 2025, passed by the dismissed the revision petition by holding passed speaking orders based on by the petitioner for interfering both the orders were upheld by the SHALINI BHATIA 2026.02.11 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.33717 of 2025 viii) Challenging the impugned orders, the petitioner has filed instant petition. SUBMISSIONS 3. Learned counsel appear that the petitioner demarcation report dated December 11, 2015 conducted by the local Commissioner on the order of Tehsildar, Shahabad. The aforesaid demarcation was neither done in ever proved by witness to the proceedings cross-examine him. with the petitioner sought to be impleaded as party in the application under Section 7(2) of the 1961 A been allowed by the GP. 4. Moreover, it was conte an opportunity to file cross-examine the Kanungo who had drawn the demarcation report the proceedings under section 7 of the 1961 Act suffered from p impropriety and the orders of eviction should be quashed 5. Mr. Mago, learned notice and submits that account the revenue and 2014-15, the land in dispute such land is vested in CWP No.33717 of 2025 Challenging the impugned orders, the petitioner has filed instant petition. SUBMISSIONS Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner could not have been evicted solely on the basis of demarcation report dated December 11, 2015 conducted by the local Commissioner on the order of Tehsildar, Shahabad. The aforesaid demarcation was neither done in the presence of petitioner nor ever proved by producing the Kanungo conducting the the proceedings, depriving the petitioner examine him. Furthermore, private respondent No.7 due to enmity with the petitioner sought to be impleaded as party in the application under of the 1961 Act, filed by the GP which prayer should not have been allowed by the GP. Moreover, it was contended that s an opportunity to file his written statement nor did examine the Kanungo who had drawn the demarcation report the proceedings under section 7 of the 1961 Act suffered from p and the orders of eviction should be quashed Mr. Mago, learned counsel for the State ubmits that the impugned orders have been passed taking into account the revenue records. As per the Jamabandi the land in dispute was recorded as is vested in the GP. The 2015 demarcation report also showed Challenging the impugned orders, the petitioner has filed ing on behalf of the petitioner submits evicted solely on the basis of demarcation report dated December 11, 2015 conducted by the local Commissioner on the order of Tehsildar, Shahabad. The aforesaid the presence of petitioner nor the same was conducting the demarcation, as a depriving the petitioner of his legal right to Furthermore, private respondent No.7 due to enmity with the petitioner sought to be impleaded as party in the application under ct, filed by the GP which prayer should not have nded that since the petitioner neither got written statement nor did he get an opportunity to examine the Kanungo who had drawn the demarcation report in 2015, the proceedings under section 7 of the 1961 Act suffered from procedural and the orders of eviction should be quashed. the State appears on advance impugned orders have been passed taking into . As per the Jamabandis for the year 2009-10 s recorded as “gair mumkin johar” and demarcation report also showed SHALINI BHATIA 2026.02.11 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.33717 of 2025 that the petitioner and possession of 12 marlas of conducted during the pendency of application under Section 7 (2) of the 1961 Act only to ascertain whether the petitioner and the respondent No.8 were still encroachin being conducted in 2015. petitioner to notice during such the said inspection illegally encroached on cattle causing instant petition should be summarily dismissed. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS 6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. From 2015 it clearly transpires that the said demarcation was done in the presence of the petitioner and proforma respondent No. on spot verified/ or disagreement report unambiguously recorded No.8 were in illegal possession of 12 marlas of panchayat land. the said demarcation report dated December 11, 2015, eviction petition under Section 7(2) of the 1961 Act as petitioner and respondent No.8 refused to remove the illegal construction CWP No.33717 of 2025 that the petitioner and his brother-respondent No.8 possession of 12 marlas of panchayat land. The 2019 conducted during the pendency of application under Section 7 (2) of the only to ascertain whether the petitioner and the respondent No.8 were still encroaching upon the panchayat land being conducted in 2015. Therefore, there was no question petitioner to notice during such spot inspection. the said inspection that the petitioner and proforma respondent No.8 ly encroached on the panchayat land by causing great hardship to the villagers. Therefore, he submits that the instant petition should be summarily dismissed. ISCUSSION AND FINDINGS This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. From perusal of the demarcation report dated December 11, 2015 it clearly transpires that the said demarcation was done in the presence ner and proforma respondent No. on spot verified/accepted the contents of the same or disagreement at the time when the demarcation was conducted. T unambiguously recorded that the petitioner and proforma respondent in illegal possession of 12 marlas of panchayat land. marcation report dated December 11, 2015, eviction petition under Section 7(2) of the 1961 Act as petitioner and respondent No.8 refused to remove the illegal construction respondent No.8 were in illegal The 2019 spot inspection was conducted during the pendency of application under Section 7 (2) of the only to ascertain whether the petitioner and the respondent No.8 the panchayat land despite the demarcation there was no question of putting the inspection. It clearly transpired from that the petitioner and proforma respondent No.8 had the panchayat land by constructing a verandah for the villagers. Therefore, he submits that the instant petition should be summarily dismissed. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the demarcation report dated December 11, 2015 it clearly transpires that the said demarcation was done in the presence ner and proforma respondent No.8 and all the people present the contents of the same and there was no dispute at the time when the demarcation was conducted. The said the petitioner and proforma respondent in illegal possession of 12 marlas of panchayat land. Based on marcation report dated December 11, 2015, the GP filed an eviction petition under Section 7(2) of the 1961 Act as petitioner and respondent No.8 refused to remove the illegal constructions made by them SHALINI BHATIA 2026.02.11 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.33717 of 2025 on johar land. through their counsel in 8. An in petition filed impleadment, the respondent inspection for the purpose of ascertaining whether the petitioner and his brother continued to encroach demarcation in 2015 inspection report Officer (BDPO) and respondent No.8 were land by not removing the illegally constructed cattle, over the 9. The Collector found represented befo arguments. Hence, the granted to the petitioner by the AC perusal of the made to demarcation report dated December 11, 2015 or the spot inspection report dated September 19, 2019 prior to the eviction order passed by the AC. 10. This Court cannot agree with the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner with opportunity of CWP No.33717 of 2025 land. Both the petitioner and the respondent No.8 were their counsel in proceedings under Section 7 (2) of the 1961 Act. An application for impleadment was filed by respondent No.7 in petition filed by the GP under Section 7 (2) of the 1961 Act and , the respondent No. 7 prayed for for the purpose of ascertaining whether the petitioner and his brother continued to encroach upon the panchayat land demarcation in 2015. The said prayer was accepted by the AC and a spot report was called for by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer (BDPO). From the said inspection, it transpired that the petitioner and respondent No.8 were still in unauthorised possession not removing the illegally constructed cattle, over the panchayat land. Therefore, the AC directed their eviction. The Collector found that petitioner before the AC through their counsel Hence, the contention of no opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by the AC was not accepted by the Collector perusal of the Collector’s order would further reveal to demarcation report dated December 11, 2015 or the spot inspection report dated September 19, 2019 prior to the eviction order passed by the This Court cannot agree with the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to no opportunity of hearing opportunity of filing of written statement being respondent No.8 were represented proceedings under Section 7 (2) of the 1961 Act. t was filed by respondent No.7 by the GP under Section 7 (2) of the 1961 Act and after his prayed for conducting of a spot for the purpose of ascertaining whether the petitioner and his upon the panchayat land despite the The said prayer was accepted by the AC and a spot was called for by the Block Development and Panchayat From the said inspection, it transpired that the petitioner in unauthorised possession of panchayat not removing the illegally constructed verandah for sheltering their anchayat land. Therefore, the AC directed their eviction. Therefore, the AC directed their eviction. that petitioner and respondent No.8 were C through their counsel and made extensive no opportunity of hearing being was not accepted by the Collector. A further reveal that no challenge was to demarcation report dated December 11, 2015 or the spot inspection report dated September 19, 2019 prior to the eviction order passed by the This Court cannot agree with the submissions made by learned regard to no opportunity of hearing or no being granted to the petitioner by SHALINI BHATIA 2026.02.11 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.33717 of 2025 the AC as the Collector, Kurukshetra vide order dated Septem upon perusing the case file observed hearing to both the parties to lead evidence and after hearing both the parties, the AC directed eviction of from the land in question. 11. T demarcation report wrong and fabricated and not conducted in the presence of the petitioner. After losing before the AC, i inspection was A perusal of the demarcation report dated December 11, 2015 unambiguously reveals that notice was sent through a Patwari affected parties including the petitioner present with all the record same was done in the presence Respectable people demarcation to be correct and were found to be 12. Since the Collector dismissed the Appeal in Commissioner predecessor-in January 26, 1950 and sufficient opportunity was not given to the petitioner to submit necessary evidence in support of his contentions the Collector. CWP No.33717 of 2025 as the Collector, Kurukshetra vide order dated Septem upon perusing the case file observed that after hearing to both the parties to lead evidence and after hearing both the the AC directed eviction of the petitioner and respondent No.8 from the land in question. The petitioner for the first time sought to challeng demarcation report before the Collector by submitting that the same was wrong and fabricated and not conducted in the presence of the petitioner. After losing before the AC, it was also sought t was not conducted in 2019 after issuing notice to the petitioner. A perusal of the demarcation report dated December 11, 2015 unambiguously reveals that notice was sent through a Patwari affected parties including the petitioner and his brother present with all the records at the time of demarcation of the land and the was done in the presence of both the petitioner and respondent No.8. people of the village were present on spot demarcation to be correct and admittedly the petitioner and respondent No.8 found to be in illegal possession of 12 marlas of land. Since the Collector dismissed the Appeal in Commissioner it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner in-interest had been in possession of the disputed land prior to January 26, 1950 and sufficient opportunity was not given to the petitioner to submit necessary evidence in support of his contentions as the Collector, Kurukshetra vide order dated September 28, 2022 that after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties to lead evidence and after hearing both the the petitioner and respondent No.8, sought to challenge the 2015 by submitting that the same was wrong and fabricated and not conducted in the presence of the petitioner. t was also sought to be argued that the spot after issuing notice to the petitioner. A perusal of the demarcation report dated December 11, 2015 unambiguously reveals that notice was sent through a Patwari to the and his brother. The Patwari was of demarcation of the land and the both the petitioner and respondent No.8. present on spot and found the the petitioner and respondent No.8 in illegal possession of 12 marlas of land. Since the Collector dismissed the Appeal in revision before the the petitioner that petitioner’s been in possession of the disputed land prior to January 26, 1950 and sufficient opportunity was not given to the petitioner to submit necessary evidence in support of his contentions by the AC and SHALINI BHATIA 2026.02.11 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.33717 of 2025 13. After he jamabandi for the year 2014 the owner of disputed land and the Collector were speaking orders unambiguously indicated that the had made illegal construction on 12 marlas of in the GP. Furthermore, proceedings on July 05, to show that the petitioner/ rightful/legitimate 14. After examining the record, t the petitioner and respondent No.8 were present during demarcation held on December 11, 2015 or any time prior to filing of Section 7 (2) petition under the 1961 Act by the Gram Panchayat called for and both the parties were heard extensively to the contents of demarcation report dated their right, if any, to challenge the same. inspection report held on September 19, 2019 challenge was laid to it Collector, they sought to challenge the AC allowed the evic same was correctly declined by the Collector. CWP No.33717 of 2025 After hearing the parties, the Commissioner found that the jamabandi for the year 2014-15 clearly recorded the Gram Panchayat to be the owner of disputed land and the orders passed by the Assistant Collector and the Collector were speaking orders based on revenue unambiguously indicated that the petitioner and his brother/respondent No.8 had made illegal construction on 12 marlas of Furthermore, it was observed that from proceedings on July 05, 2016, no proof could be submitted by the petitioner to show that the petitioner/ their predecess legitimate possession of the disputed land since 1950. After examining the record, this Court is of the view that since the petitioner and respondent No.8 were present during demarcation held on December 11, 2015 and did not dispute the same at the time of demarcation or any time prior to filing of Section 7 (2) petition under the 1961 Act by the Gram Panchayat or during the hearing before A called for and both the parties were heard extensively to the contents of demarcation report dated December 11, 2015 their right, if any, to challenge the same. Furthermore inspection report held on September 19, 2019 challenge was laid to it before the AC. For the first time they sought to challenge the 2015 d the eviction petition filed by the G same was correctly declined by the Collector. Page 8 of 12 aring the parties, the Commissioner found that the 15 clearly recorded the Gram Panchayat to be the orders passed by the Assistant Collector based on revenue record which and his brother/respondent No.8 had made illegal construction on 12 marlas of the disputed land that vested it was observed that from the initiation of be submitted by the petitioner their predecessor-in-interest were in possession of the disputed land since 1950. his Court is of the view that since the petitioner and respondent No.8 were present during demarcation held on and did not dispute the same at the time of demarcation or any time prior to filing of Section 7 (2) petition under the 1961 Act by or during the hearing before AC where evidence was called for and both the parties were heard extensively, they had acquiesced December 11, 2015 and waived Furthermore, the contents of spot inspection report held on September 19, 2019 were also accepted as no . For the first time in appeal before the 2015 demarcation report after the tion petition filed by the GP based on the same and the SHALINI BHATIA 2026.02.11 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.33717 of 2025 15. To the mind of this Court, principles of waiver and acquiescence apart from delay. Concepts of acquiescence and laches have been succinctly explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case (2022) 2 SCC 24 “xxx Delay, laches and 20 are overlapping and interconnected on many occasions. However, they have their distinct characters and distinct elements. One can say that delay is the genus to which laches and ac a genus to a species by name acquiescence. However, there may be a case where acquiescence is involved, but not laches. These principles are common law principles, and perhaps one could identify tha statutes which restrict the period of limitation and create non consideration of condonation in certain circumstances. They are bound to be applied by way of practice requiring prudence of the court than of a strict principle governing these concepts would be one of estoppel. The question of prejudice is also an important issue to be tak note of by the Court. Laches 21. meaning “ unreasonable delay or negligence in pursuing a claim involving an equitable relief while causing prejudice to the other party. It is neglect on the part of a party to do an act which law requires while a stand in the way of the party getting relief or remedy. 22. delay and the nature of acts done during the interval. As stated, it would also involve acquiescence approaching the court apart from the change in position in the interregnum. Therefore, it would be unjustifiable for a Court of Equity to confer a remedy on a party who knocks its doors when his acts would indicate a waiver of such CWP No.33717 of 2025 To the mind of this Court, the instant writ petition is hit by the principles of waiver and acquiescence apart from delay. Concepts of acquiescence and laches have been succinctly explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. N. Murugesan (2022) 2 SCC 24. The relevant extract thereof is reproduced hereinafter: “xxx Delay, laches and acquiescence 20. The principles governing delay, laches, and acquiescence are overlapping and interconnected on many occasions. However, they have their distinct characters and distinct elements. One can say that delay is the genus to which laches and acquiescence are species. Similarly, laches might be called a genus to a species by name acquiescence. However, there may be a case where acquiescence is involved, but not laches. These principles are common law principles, and perhaps one could identify that these principles find place in various statutes which restrict the period of limitation and create non consideration of condonation in certain circumstances. They are bound to be applied by way of practice requiring prudence of the court than of a strict application of law. The underlying principle governing these concepts would be one of estoppel. The question of prejudice is also an important issue to be tak note of by the Court. Laches 21. The word “laches” is derived from the French language meaning “remissness and slackness unreasonable delay or negligence in pursuing a claim involving an equitable relief while causing prejudice to the other party. It is neglect on the part of a party to do an act which law requires while asserting a right, and therefore, must stand in the way of the party getting relief or remedy. 22. Two essential factors to be seen are the length of the delay and the nature of acts done during the interval. As stated, it would also involve acquiescence approaching the court apart from the change in position in the interregnum. Therefore, it would be unjustifiable for a Court of Equity to confer a remedy on a party who knocks its doors when his acts would indicate a waiver of such he instant writ petition is hit by the principles of waiver and acquiescence apart from delay. Concepts of delay, acquiescence and laches have been succinctly explained by the Hon’ble Union of India v. N. Murugesan, reported in . The relevant extract thereof is reproduced hereinafter: principles governing delay, laches, and acquiescence are overlapping and interconnected on many occasions. However, they have their distinct characters and distinct elements. One can say that delay is the genus to which laches quiescence are species. Similarly, laches might be called a genus to a species by name acquiescence. However, there may be a case where acquiescence is involved, but not laches. These principles are common law principles, and perhaps one t these principles find place in various statutes which restrict the period of limitation and create non- consideration of condonation in certain circumstances. They are bound to be applied by way of practice requiring prudence application of law. The underlying principle governing these concepts would be one of estoppel. The question of prejudice is also an important issue to be taken The word “laches” is derived from the French language remissness and slackness”. It thus involves unreasonable delay or negligence in pursuing a claim involving an equitable relief while causing prejudice to the other party. It is neglect on the part of a party to do an act sserting a right, and therefore, must stand in the way of the party getting relief or remedy. Two essential factors to be seen are the length of the delay and the nature of acts done during the interval. As stated, it would also involve acquiescence on the part of the party approaching the court apart from the change in position in the interregnum. Therefore, it would be unjustifiable for a Court of Equity to confer a remedy on a party who knocks its doors when his acts would indicate a waiver of such a right. By his SHALINI BHATIA 2026.02.11 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.33717 of 2025 conduct, he has put the other party in a particular position, and therefore, it would be unreasonable to facilitate a challenge before the court. Thus, a man responsible for his conduct on equity is not expected to be allowed to avail a re 23. no statutory bar. The question as to whether there exists a clear case of laches on the part of a person seeking a remedy is one of fact and so also that of prejudice. The said principle may pleaded and proved by the other side. To determine the difference between the concept of laches and acquiescence is that, in a case involving mere laches, the principle of estoppel would apply to all Therefore, a defendant can succeed on the various grounds raised by the plaintiff, while an issue concerned alone would be amenable to acquiescence. Acquiescence 24. acquiescence on the one hand and delay and laches on the other. 25. It is implied and reluctant consent to an act. In other words, such an action would qualify a passive assent. Thus, when ac particular act. From the knowledge comes passive acceptance, therefore instead of taking any action against any alleged refusal to perform the original contract, despite adequate knowledge of its t by consciously ignoring it and thereafter proceeding further, acquiescence does take place. As a consequence, it reintroduces a new implied agreement between the parties. Once such a situation arises, it is not o acquiesced itself to insist upon the compliance of the original terms. Hence, what is essential, is the conduct of the parties. We only dealt with the distinction involving a mere acquiescence. When acquiescence is followed by delay, become laches. Here again, we are inclined to hold that the concept of acquiescence is to be seen on a case Xxx CWP No.33717 of 2025 conduct, he has put the other party in a particular position, and therefore, it would be unreasonable to facilitate a challenge before the court. Thus, a man responsible for his conduct on equity is not expected to be allowed to avail a remedy. 23. A defence of laches can only be allowed when there is no statutory bar. The question as to whether there exists a clear case of laches on the part of a person seeking a remedy is one of fact and so also that of prejudice. The said principle may not have any application when the existence of fraud is pleaded and proved by the other side. To determine the difference between the concept of laches and acquiescence is that, in a case involving mere laches, the principle of estoppel would apply to all the defences that are available to a party. Therefore, a defendant can succeed on the various grounds raised by the plaintiff, while an issue concerned alone would be amenable to acquiescence. Acquiescence 24. We have already discussed the relationship acquiescence on the one hand and delay and laches on the other. 25. Acquiescence would mean a tacit or passive acceptance. It is implied and reluctant consent to an act. In other words, such an action would qualify a passive assent. Thus, when acquiescence takes place, it presupposes knowledge against a particular act. From the knowledge comes passive acceptance, therefore instead of taking any action against any alleged refusal to perform the original contract, despite adequate knowledge of its terms, and instead being allowed to continue by consciously ignoring it and thereafter proceeding further, acquiescence does take place. As a consequence, it reintroduces a new implied agreement between the parties. Once such a situation arises, it is not o acquiesced itself to insist upon the compliance of the original terms. Hence, what is essential, is the conduct of the parties. We only dealt with the distinction involving a mere acquiescence. When acquiescence is followed by delay, become laches. Here again, we are inclined to hold that the concept of acquiescence is to be seen on a case Xxx” conduct, he has put the other party in a particular position, and therefore, it would be unreasonable to facilitate a challenge before the court. Thus, a man responsible for his conduct on equity is not expected to be allowed to avail a A defence of laches can only be allowed when there is no statutory bar. The question as to whether there exists a clear case of laches on the part of a person seeking a remedy is one of fact and so also that of prejudice. The said principle not have any application when the existence of fraud is pleaded and proved by the other side. To determine the difference between the concept of laches and acquiescence is that, in a case involving mere laches, the principle of estoppel the defences that are available to a party. Therefore, a defendant can succeed on the various grounds raised by the plaintiff, while an issue concerned alone would We have already discussed the relationship between acquiescence on the one hand and delay and laches on the Acquiescence would mean a tacit or passive acceptance. It is implied and reluctant consent to an act. In other words, such an action would qualify a passive assent. Thus, when quiescence takes place, it presupposes knowledge against a particular act. From the knowledge comes passive acceptance, therefore instead of taking any action against any alleged refusal to perform the original contract, despite adequate erms, and instead being allowed to continue by consciously ignoring it and thereafter proceeding further, acquiescence does take place. As a consequence, it reintroduces a new implied agreement between the parties. Once such a situation arises, it is not open to the party that acquiesced itself to insist upon the compliance of the original terms. Hence, what is essential, is the conduct of the parties. We only dealt with the distinction involving a mere acquiescence. When acquiescence is followed by delay, it may become laches. Here again, we are inclined to hold that the concept of acquiescence is to be seen on a case-to-case basis. SHALINI BHATIA 2026.02.11 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.33717 of 2025 16. After participating in the demarcation process and accepting the same for more than five years was passed by the around and challenge the in his presence and without any dispute being raised 17. This Court is also of the view that there was no need to associate the petitioner with the spot inspection in 2019 as it was only for the purpose of were still in unauthorised possession of the pancha passage of more than when they were found to be in illegal occupation of 2019 spot inspection was not for the purpose of demarcation as there was no c the AC. 18. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated February 24, 2020 passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade September 28, 2022 passed by the Collector, Kurukshetra and order dated September 16, 2025 passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala appreciation of facts and law a petition is a frivolous attempt to prolong the petitioner possession over panchayat land and this Court. CWP No.33717 of 2025 After participating in the demarcation process and e same for more than five years till such time was passed by the AC, the petitioner cannot be now permitted around and challenge the 2015 report, especially when the same was done in his presence and without any dispute being raised This Court is also of the view that there was no need to associate the petitioner with the spot inspection in 2019 as it was only for the purpose of ascertaining whether the petitioner and respondent No.8 were still in unauthorised possession of the pancha more than three years from the date of demarcation when they were found to be in illegal occupation of 2019 spot inspection was not for the purpose of demarcation as there was no challenge to 2015 demarcation report before In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view impugned order dated February 24, 2020 passed by the Assistant Grade-cum-SDO (C) (Annexure P September 28, 2022 passed by the Collector, Kurukshetra and order dated September 16, 2025 passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala (Annexure P-6), are speaking orders based on correct appreciation of facts and law and merit no interference. petition is a frivolous attempt to prolong the petitioner possession over panchayat land and such attempt After participating in the demarcation process and after till such time an adverse order the petitioner cannot be now permitted to turn report, especially when the same was done in his presence and without any dispute being raised thereto. This Court is also of the view that there was no need to associate the petitioner with the spot inspection in 2019 as it was only for whether the petitioner and respondent No.8 were still in unauthorised possession of the panchayat land even after from the date of demarcation in 2015 when they were found to be in illegal occupation of panchayat land. The 2019 spot inspection was not for the purpose of conducting fresh hallenge to 2015 demarcation report before In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view impugned order dated February 24, 2020 passed by the Assistant (Annexure P-2), Shahabad, order dated September 28, 2022 passed by the Collector, Kurukshetra (Annexure P-4) and order dated September 16, 2025 passed by the Commissioner, Ambala , are speaking orders based on correct nd merit no interference. The instant writ petition is a frivolous attempt to prolong the petitioner’s unauthorised such attempt is not at all appreciated by SHALINI BHATIA 2026.02.11 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.33717 of 2025 19. Accordingly, the writ petition, being CWP No. is dismissed, without any order as to costs 20. Connected application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE FEBRUARY Shalini Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: CWP No.33717 of 2025 Accordingly, the writ petition, being CWP No. without any order as to costs. Connected application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of (DEEPAK SIBAL) (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE 10, 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No Accordingly, the writ petition, being CWP No.33717 of 2025 Connected application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No SHALINI BHATIA 2026.02.11 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document