AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
In the headnote of the petition, the following prayers have been made:
“Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ in the Nature of certiorari for setting aside impugned notice dated 14.08.2026 (Annexure P-8) issued by the respondent No.3 and Further praying for issuance of Mandamus of direction to the respondents to maintain the status quo till the decision of Representation dated 04.03.2025 (Annexure P-5), which is pending before the respondent No.1 and Hon'ble High Court has directed to the respondent No.1 to decide the Representation dated 04.03.2025 (Annexure P-5) within a period of four months vide order dated 10.08.2026 (Annexure P-6) in CWP No.26048 of 2025 case title Rampal and others Vs. State of Haryana AND For issuance of any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.”
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case, a notice under Section 18(1)(b) of the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran Act, 1977 (in short ‘HSVP’) has been issued to the petitioners and a perusal of the same would show that the petitioners were to be given an opportunity of hearing and it was also further stated that the petitioners were to show cause as to why the order with respect to taking of possession be not passed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners filed reply dated 18.08.2026 raising several issues and has further submitted that no final order has been passed by the Estate Officer. It is submitted that the petitioners are apprehending that the respondents will take possession from the petitioners prior to any final decision taken by the Estate Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioners has thus, submitted that till the time the final decision is taken by the Estate Officer, status quo with respect to possession be ordered to be maintained.
Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Estate Officer will pass a final order, if already not passed, by taking into consideration the reply filed by the petitioners. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the grant of the interim order should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the authorities would pass a final order independently.
Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to pass a final order on the notice issued under Section 18(1)(b) of the HSVP Act within a period of two weeks from today. Till the time the Estate Officer finally decides the matter, status quo with respect to possession be maintained.
It is made clear that the grant of said interim order should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the Estate Officer would take a decision independently in accordance with law.