CWP-19281-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (114) CWP-19281-2026 Date of Decision: - 27.07.2026 Baljit 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. In the present writ petition, the following prayers have been made in the headnote: - “CIVIL WRIT PETITION Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus/Prohibition for staying the operation and implementation of the order dated 15.01.2026 (Annexure P-1) or in alternative restraining the respondents from dispossessing the petitioners from the land in question during the pendency of the Appeal with the stay application dated 06.04.2026 before the respondent No.2 (Annexure P-2) as the stay application filed by the petitioners has not been decided by the Ld. Collector till date and on the other hand warrants of possession dated 04.06.2026 (Annexure P-3) has been issued and the respondents are hell bent to execute the order dated 15.01.2026 (Annexure P-1) whereas the NARESH KUMAR 2026.07.29 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgement CWP-19281-2026 -2- Appeal and stay application is pending and till date the stay application has not been decided. AND Issue any other appropriate order or direction may deem fit and proper, keeping in view of facts and circumstances of the present case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that against the order dated 15.01.2026, the petitioners had filed a statutory appeal in which notice was issued on 13.04.2026 for 22.05.2026 and thereafter, since the Collector was not holding the Court, thus, no further date has been given. It has been fairly submitted that along with the appeal an application for stay as well as an application for condonation of delay has been filed and in all the said applications notice has been issued. It is stated that till the time the stay application/condonation of delay application is not considered, the possession of the petitioners be protected, inasmuch as, now the authorities are seeking to take possession from the petitioners. It is submitted that counsel appearing for the petitioners before the Collector would be prepared to argue both the said applications as well as the main appeal on any date directed by the Collector. 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 4-State has submitted that since the Collector, Ambala has been transferred, the new appointee is likely to take over in the near future and has further submitted that in case any interim order is passed in favour of the petitioners, the same should not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the Collector should be directed to decide the stay NARESH KUMAR 2026.07.29 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgement CWP-19281-2026 -3- application as well as the application for condonation of delay independent of the same. 4. Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the application for stay as well as the application for condonation of delay as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two weeks from the date the new incumbent takes up the charge. Till the time the application for condonation of delay and the stay application is decided, status quo with respect to possession be maintained. 5. It is made clear that the grant of interim order should not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. It is further made clear that in case the counsel for the petitioners before the appellate authority is not prepared to argue the case or the said applications and seeks an adjournment, then, the present stay order would be deemed to have been vacated. 6. It would be open to respondent no.5 to move an application for recalling of the present order in case the said respondent is aggrieved against the same. (VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE (SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE July 27, 2026 naresh.k Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes Whether reportable? No NARESH KUMAR 2026.07.29 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgement