AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
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 a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, more particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 2 to take up and decide ROR No. 289 of 2026 (dated 25.06.2026) titled "Jasmer Singh & Others Vs. Gram Panchayat, Kurbanpur & Others" (Annexure P-10) alongwith the pending Application for stay, expeditiously as the matter stood adjourned to 19.08.2026 only on account of the Court not being held, while the Respondent Authorities have initiated coercive steps to dispossess the petitioner and to auction the land in dispute.
And/OR
Issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Impugned Letter dated 25.06 25.06.2026 (Annexure P-8) issued by respondent No. 6, the consequential order dated 25.06.2026 passed by respondent no. 5 (Annexure P-9) appointing the duty magistrate for taking forcible possession of the land in dispute, and all further consequential proceedings initiated pursuant thereto, including the proposed dispossession, eviction, auction, lease or creation of any third-party rights in respect of the land in dispute.
And/Or
Issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from giving effect to the impugned order dated 25.06.2026 (Annexure P-9) and from dispossessing the petitioners or interfering with their peaceful and cultivating possession of the land in dispute during the pendency of ROR No. 289 of 2026 before the Respondent No. 2 Ld. Financial Commissioner, Haryana.
And/OR
Stay of the operation and effect of the impugned letter dated 25.06.2026 (Annexure P-8), the consequential order dated 25.06.2026 (Annexure P-9), and all further consequential proceedings, including dispossession, eviction, demolition, auction, leasing, mutation, delivery of possession or creation of third-party rights, during the pendency of the present writ petition as well as the statutory revision petition.
And/Or
Issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to maintain complete status quo with regard to the possession, nature and character of the land in dispute till the final decision of ROR No. 289 of 2026 pending before the Respondent No. 2.
And/Or
Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case may also be issued.”
On 10.07.2026, this Court was pleased to pass the following order: -
“JASMER SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Inter alia contends that in the present case, the Gram Panchayat had filed a suit under Section 13-A of the Haryana Village Common Land Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), which petition was allowed vide order dated 26.07.2024. It is submitted that an appeal was filed against the same by the petitioners under Section 13-AA of the Act before the Divisional Commissioner, Ambala Division, challenging the Collector’s order dated 26.07.2024 and since the said appeal was not being decided and the possession was being sought to be taken from the petitioners, the petitioners filed CWP-7009-2026 and the coordinate Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.03.2026 (Annexure P-5) was pleased to direct the Commissioner, Ambala, to decide the appeal in a time bound manner and till such time, status quo with regard to possession was ordered to be maintained. It is submitted that the Commissioner has decided the appeal against the petitioners on 09.06.2026 against which the petitioners have filed a revision under Section 13AA (2) of the Act and the said revision has been filed within limitation on 25.06.2026 and the ROR-289/2026 was listed before the Court of Financial Commissioner on 08.07.2026 and on the said date, since the Presiding Officer was not holding the Court, the case was adjourned to 19.08.2026. It is submitted that however, in the meantime, the Gram Panchayat is seeking to take possession from the petitioners and has referred to Annexure P-7 regarding the same. It is submitted that there is no eviction order passed against the petitioners and at any rate, the statutory revision filed by the petitioners along with the stay application is still pending. Notice of motion for 13.08.2026. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to serve respondent No.7 through dasti process. Till the next date of hearing, status quo with respect to possession be maintained. To be taken up immediately after the urgent list. July 10th, 2026”
Learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that since it is the case of the petitioners that they have filed ROR No.289-2026 before the Financial Commissioner-respondent No.2, thus, liberty be also granted to the respondents to assist the Financial Commissioner as it is the case of respondents that the said revision of the petitioners is meritless. It is further submitted that the grant and continuation of the interim order should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the respondents be granted liberty to raise all the pleas as available to them in accordance with law to oppose the said ROR.
Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances and the fair stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as by the respondents, the present writ petition is disposed of with the following directions/observations: -
The ROR-289-2026 is stated to be listed before the Financial Commissioner-respondent No.2 on 19.08.2026. It would be open to the respondents also to appear before the Financial Commissioner to oppose the said ROR in accordance with law. Respondent No.2 is requested to decide the said ROR-289-2026, after hearing all the parties concerned, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four months from 19.08.2026.
Till the time the said ROR is decided, the interim order dated 10.07.2026 would continue.
It is made clear that the grant and continuance of the said interim order should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and respondent No.2 would decide the ROR-289-2026 independently, in accordance with law.