CWP-23094-2026 [1] 124 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-23094-2026 Date of decision: 27.07.2026 Bir Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Pradeep Prakash Chahar, Addl. A.G. Haryana. **** VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) 1. The present Civil Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the Resolution No.1 dated 17.07.2026 (Annexure P-32) passed by respondent No.6 whereby the case of the petitioners under the amendment in the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act 1961 dated 12.12.2024 (Annexure P-26) and the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for regularization of unauthorized construction on Shamlat land dated 07.04.2025 (Annexure P-27) and 09.03.2026 (Annexure P-28) has been rejected. 2. The present case is meritless. Following facts would depict the same. Respondent No.6-Gram Panchayat had instituted several petitions PAWAN KUMAR 2026.07.29 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-23094-2026 [2] under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Land Act, 1961 (presently known as Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961) in the year 1995 against the petitioners/fathers of the petitioners with respect to land in question and the said eviction petitions were allowed vide order dated 05.04.1995 and it was observed that the petitioners/their forefathers were in unauthorized possession since the year 1986-87 and they were ordered to be evicted from the same and further penalty of Rs.10,000/- per hectare per year was also imposed upon them. In the said order, it was observed that the land in dispute was owned by the Gram Panchayat which was for common purpose of the village. Even as per the case of the petitioners, only petitioner No.1 had challenged the said order and other petitioners did not challenge the said order and thus, the said order qua other petitioners had attained finality. 3. On a pointed query raised by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly submitted that the eviction proceedings against petitioner No.1 had also attained finality in the year 2014. The petitioners, however, continued to be in unauthorized occupation of the land in question. 4. On 12.12.2024, Section 5A(1)(1A) was incorporated in the Act of 1961 by virtue of the Amendment Act of the year 2024 and as per the said provisions, Panchayat with the prior approval of the State Government could transfer non-cultivable land in shamilat deh by sale to the inhabitants of the village subject to certain conditions and certain type of land was specifically excluded from the said provision. The petitioners who are admittedly in unauthorized occupation of the Panchayat land filed CWP- PAWAN KUMAR 2026.07.29 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-23094-2026 [3] 20784-2026 before this Court and stated before this Court that the eviction proceedings against the petitioners have already attained finality and raised a limited prayer to the effect that Gram Panchayat be directed to consider the applications submitted by the petitioners under the abovesaid amending Act. This Court after taking into consideration the abovesaid facts and limited prayer made, had disposed of the said writ petition with the following observations/directions:- “4. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances and fair stand taken by the counsel for the petitioners as well as the counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5, the present writ petition is disposed of with the following observations/directions:- i) Respondent No.6-Gram Panchayat would consider the applications (Annexures P-6 to P-25) filed by the petitioners as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from today. (ii) In case respondent No.6-Gram Panchayat passes a resolution in favour of the petitioners, then, the said resolution be forwarded in accordance with the settled procedure and the Director Panchayat is directed to pass a final order on the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt of recommendations, if any. iii) It is made clear that in case the Gram Panchayat does not recommend the case of the petitioners, then, no further decision would be required to be taken at the end of Director Panchayat. iv) Till the time, the Gram Panchayat does not consider the case of the petitioners, status quo with respect to possession be maintained and in case Gram Panchayat recommends the case in favour of the PAWAN KUMAR 2026.07.29 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-23094-2026 [4] petitioners, then, status quo order would continue till the time the final decision is taken by the Director Panchayat. v) It would, however, be open to the Gram Panchayat to move an application for recalling the present order in case the facts put forth before us are incorrect or in case the Gram Panchayat is aggrieved of the present order. vi) It is made clear that the said interim order should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the authorities would consider the application filed by the petitioners independently, in accordance with law. 5. The Registry of this Court is directed to forward the present order to respondent No.6-Gram Panchayat. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would also apprise the Gram Panchayat of the present order within a period of five days from today. July 10th, 2026” 5. In pursuance of the said directions issued, the Gram Panchayat has passed the Resolution dated 17.07.2026 in which it has been stated that the property which is in occupation of the petitioners is in Gair Mumkin johad land and thus, falls in the reserved category under Notification dated 11.09.2024 and, therefore, applications filed by the petitioners were rejected. Seven out of nine members including Sarpanch had passed the said Resolution. In view of the limited prayer which has been made by the petitioners in the earlier round of litigation and also in view of the fact that the eviction order against the petitioners has already attained finality, this Court vide order dated 10.07.2026 had specifically stated that in case the Gram Panchayat does not recommend the case of the petitioners, then, no PAWAN KUMAR 2026.07.29 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-23094-2026 [5] further decision would be required to be taken at the end of the Director Panchayat and that the order of status quo with respect to possession was to be maintained till the time Gram Panchayat does not consider the case of the petitioners. Since, Gram Panchayat has, for valid reasons, rejected the case of the petitioners vide Resolution dated 17.07.2026, thus, no further cause was there for the petitioners to agitate the matter, more so, when the order dated 10.07.2026 has attained finality and the petitioners have also taken the benefit of the said directions issued in the same. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have a right to be considered under the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Amendment Act, 2024 and under Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dated 07.04.2025 and should have been granted an opportunity of hearing before the impugned Resolution had been passed. 7. The said argument is completely fallacious. It would be relevant to note that in the earlier round of litigation, no such prayer was made or granted that the petitioners should be given personal hearing. Further a perusal of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Amendment Act, 2024 more so, Section 5A(1)(1A), which has been inserted by virtue of the said amendment and which is sought to be relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners does not give the petitioners any vested right to claim transfer of ownership of land which admittedly is in their unauthorized occupation. Section 5A(1)(1A) of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Amendment Act, 2024 which was inserted by virtue of the amendment is reproduced hereinbelow:- “4. After sub-section (1) of section 5A of the principal Act, PAWAN KUMAR 2026.07.29 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-23094-2026 [6] the following sub-section shall be inserted, namely:- “(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), a Panchayat may, with the prior approval of the State Government, transfer its non-cultivable land in shamilat deh by sale to the inhabitant of the village who has constructed on or before the 31st March, 2004, a house or part thereof alongwith open space upto twenty- five percent of the constructed area, both put together not exceeding five hundred square yards and not causing any obstruction to traffic and other public utilities and also not a land reserved for pond or any other water body or revenue rasta entered as such in revenue record, at the rate not less than the market rate, to be determined in such manner, as may be prescribed.”.” A perusal of the said provision would show that same is an enabling provision, enabling the Panchayat, with the prior approval of the State Government, to transfer non-cultivable land in shamilat deh by sale to the inhabitants of the village under certain conditions and there is a specific exclusion in the said provision to the effect that Panchayat, even with the prior approval of the State Government, cannot transfer the land which causes obstruction to traffic and other public difficulties or land which is reserved for pond or any other water body or revenue rasta entered as such in the revenue record. 8. As per the impugned resolution, land of the petitioners is in Gair Mumkin Johad (pond) and thus, same would be within the exclusion mentioned in Section 5A(1)(1A) of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Amendment Act, 2024. Moreover, at any rate, since the petitioners are admittedly unauthorized occupants, and the eviction order PAWAN KUMAR 2026.07.29 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-23094-2026 [7] against petitioner Nos. 2 to 10 was finalized on 05.04.1995, while the eviction order against petitioner No.1 was finalized in the year 2014, it cannot be said that the petitioners have an absolute right under the said provision to seek the transfer of the shamilat deh land. 9. Argument raised on behalf of the petitioners, on the basis of SOP dated 07.04.2025, to the effect that the Gram Panchayat was required to prepare the land utilization plan is also misconceived. A perusal of the said SOP would show that the first step is for the unauthorized occupant to move an application to the Gram Panchayat through its Sarpanch to purchase the land by submitting relevant documents. The second step is passing of a resolution in favour of the said unauthorized occupant which is to be passed by the Gram Panchayat with 3/4th majority and by Gram Sabha with 1/10th majority. It is only in case resolution, by Gram Panchayat with 3/4th majority and by Gram Sabha with 1/10th majority, is passed then, the Gram Panchayat is required to prepare land utilization plan in order to make out a case for sale before the State Government. In case, Gram Panchayat or Gram Sabha does not pass any resolution as mentioned in Step No.2, no further action is required to be taken much less, to prepare the land utilization plan. 10. Additionally, it would be relevant to mention that a perusal of the eviction order dated 05.04.1995, which as per the case of the petitioners had been passed against the petitioners, would further show that it was observed that the petitioners were in unauthorized occupation from the year 1986-87 to 1994-95 and penalty of Rs.10,000/- per hectare per year was imposed on the petitioners. It is not in dispute that only petitioner No.1 had PAWAN KUMAR 2026.07.29 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-23094-2026 [8] challenged the said order and ultimately lost litigation in the year 2014 thus, the petitioners are apparently in unauthorized occupation for several decades. 11. On a pointed query raised by this Court, learned counsel for the respondents-State has submitted that as per the instructions from Mr. Amit Singh, BDPO, Thanesar, penalty imposed vide order dated 05.04.1995 has not been recovered from the petitioners. 12. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the present writ petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, we refrain from imposing any costs on the petitioners. The respondents-authorities are directed to execute the order dated 05.04.1995 to recover the penalty imposed on each of the petitioners as expeditiously as possible. (VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE (SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE 27.07.2026 Pawan Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No PAWAN KUMAR 2026.07.29 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document