AMIT v. STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH ITS ADD CHIEF SECRETARY
CWP/8639/2026 · 2026-03-20
Jagmohan Bansal
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 8675 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 8675 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
139
CWP-8639-2026 Date of Decision: 20.03.2026
AMIT AND ORS.
...Petitioners Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
…Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present:- Mr. Ram Darshan Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, Addl. A.G. Haryana
*** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)
1.
The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking direction to respondents not to construct/reconstruct V.R. Bridge at RD-17015 of Loharu Fidder and remove illegal possession from the land in question and pay compensation to them.
2.
The petitioners are claiming that they are owners of land where respondent has constructed bridge and road. The respondent for many years is illegally using their land. The respondent has neither paid compensation nor permitting them to utilize their land. They have laid representation dated 20.02.2026 seeking either release of land or payment of compensation. The respondent has issued tender for reconstruction of bridge.
DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.03.20 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-8639-2026
-2-
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are owner of land in question. They were not paid compensation at the time of utilization of said land for construction of bridge. They have made representation to authorities but to no avail. The revenue record is vindicating their claim.
4.
Faced with this, learned State counsel submits that bridge was constructed 70 years back and now authorities are reconstructing it. The petitioners want to exploit the situation. They never raised objection during last 70 years. Nevertheless, competent authority would examine their claim and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.
5.
In the wake of statement of learned State counsel, the petition stands disposed of. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed opinion either on merits or limitation. The authority shall independently examine the issue.
6.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE March 20, 2026 Deepak DPA
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable
Yes/No DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.03.20 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document