CWP-20961-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 127 CWP-20961-2026 Date of decision: 14.07.2026 Mam Chand & ors. ...Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana & ors. ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present :- Mr. Rishav Jain, Advocate and Mr. Kanish Jindal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana. VIKAS BAHL , J. (Oral) 1. In the present petition, the following prayers have been made in the headnote:- “Civil writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus for the issuance of direction to the respondents to decide the representation dated 27.02.2026 (Annexure P-14) in a time bound manner with regard to payment of compensation with regard to land measuring 1812 sq. yards owned by petitioners situated in Muktsil No.22 Killa No. 3/2/3, 8/1, 4/3 and 7 situated in Village Dadsiya, Tehsil and District Faridabad on which the Public Works Department (B&R) Faridabad had constructed a road on the right bank of Yamuna River, Burji No. 0 to 13 plus 770 i.e., Villages: Faridabad. Basantpur to Watpur, District: Faridabad. Further, for issuance of writ in the nature of MONIKA VERMA 2026.07.15 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh CWP-20961-2026 -2- mandamus for direction to the respondents to remove the constructed road which has been constructed illegally and without acquiring the same and without paying any compensation to the true owners on the right bank of Yamuna River, Burji No. 0 to 13 plus 770 i.e., Village: Basantpur to Watpur, District: Faridabad. Further, for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus for direction either to acquire the land in accordance with law on which the road has been constructed and to pay the compensation for the land which is owned by the petitioners as is clear from the copy of the Jamabandi for the year 2017-18 and 2022-23. The said land has never been acquired nor any compensation has ever been paid. And as per Article 300- A of the Constitution of India, no person can be deprived of his property without payment of compensation. Further, for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus for direction to the official respondents No. 2,3 & 4 to get the said land demarcated in view of the revenue record as per the Jamabandi for the year 2017- 18 as on the land measuring 1812 sq. yards owned by the petitioners situated in Muktsil No.22 Killa No. 3/2/3, 8/1, 4/3 and 7 situated in Village Dadsiya, Tehsil and District Faridabad on which the Public Works Department (B&R) Faridabad had constructed a road on the right bank of Yamuna River, Burji No. 0 to 13 plus 770 i.e., Villages: Basantpur to Watpur, District: Faridabad. Or any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. It is not disputed that petitioner No.1-Mam Chand had earlier filed CWP-6446-2021, in which the prayer has been made for the same khasra number and the said petition was dismissed on 14.03.2023. The MONIKA VERMA 2026.07.15 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh CWP-20961-2026 -3- relevant paragraphs of the order passed by the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court are reproduced as under:- “The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking directions restraining the respondents from constructing the road in the land bearing Rectangle No.22, Khewat No.5/6, Killa No.3/2/3/ (0-3), 4/3 (2-9) situated within the Revenue Estate of Village Dadasiya, District Faridabad. The claim of the present petition is that the land had never been acquired nor any compensation has been paid and, therefore, invocation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India has also been sought. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 7. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed on this account. We refrain ourselves from imposing costs, keeping in view the age of the petitioner who is around 80 years old.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the same, the petitioners be permitted to withdraw the present petition. 4. Dismissed as withdrawn as prayed for. 5. Although we are inclined to impose costs in the present petition, but since the petitioners are withdrawing the petition, thus we refrain to do the same. (VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE 14.07.2026 (SUBHAS MEHLA) monika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No MONIKA VERMA 2026.07.15 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh