Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2026) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 21375 = 2026:PHHC:113084-DB
Decided on: 17.08.2026
Present:
Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr.Ayush Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Pradeep Prakash Chahar, Addl.A.G. Haryana.
***
Recall of order -- Change in legal position -- Basis of earlier dismissal having ceased to exist, order recalled and writ petition restored.
***
A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 151 -- Recall of order -- Subsequent change in legal position -- Writ petition had been dismissed on basis of Supreme Court judgment subsequently reviewed -- Foundation of earlier order having ceased to exist, order of dismissal recalled and writ petition restored to its original number.
(Paras 1-4)
B. Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 13-A -- Disputed questions of fact -- Writ jurisdiction -- Land recorded as “Jumla Malkan Wa Digar Hakdaran Araji Hasab Rasad Rakba Khewat” -- Petitioners challenged carving out of plots/Baras and change in nature of land without payment of compensation -- State raised objection that disputed questions of fact were involved and statutory remedy under Section 13-A was available -- Petitioners fairly sought withdrawal of writ petition with liberty to institute suit before Competent Court -- All parties left free to raise all pleas -- Competent Court to decide matter independently in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation made by High Court -- In case stay application is filed along with suit, same directed to be considered within three weeks from date of filing.
(Paras 5-9)
Cases referred:
1. Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, reported as 2024 AIR (Supreme Court) 2694.
***
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) –
CM-7510-CWP-2025
1. This is an application under Section 151 CPC for recalling of the order dated 26.07.2022 (Annexure A-1).
2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case, the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court had dismissed the writ petition vide judgment dated 26.07.2022 in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 07.04.2022 in the case of “The State of Haryana through Secretary to Government of Haryana vs. Jai Singh and others”, Civil Appeal no.6990 of 2014. It is submitted that the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been reviewed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 16.05.2024 passed in the review petition (civil) no.526 of 2023 in civil appeal no.6990 of 2014 titled as “Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana and others” reported as 2024 AIR (Supreme Court) 2694. It is submitted that thus the order dated 26.07.2022 be recalled and the main case be heard. It is further submitted that after the judgment dated 16.05.2024, the civil appeal filed by the State was dismissed on 16.09.2025.
3. Learned State counsel has submitted that since in the present case, there are disputed questions of fact, the main writ petition should not be entertained by the High Court and that the petitioners have a remedy of filing an application under Section 13-A of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 for the adjudication of the said disputed facts.
4. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, the present application is allowed and the judgment dated 26.07.2022 is recalled and the main case is restored to its original number.
Main case
5. In the present writ petition, following prayers have been made:-
“Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ especially in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the action of the respondents in carving out the Baras of 100 Sq. Mtrs./100 Sq.Yds., to the alleged families of Weaker Section or alienation of land for any other purpose out of the land meant for 'Jumla Malkan Wa Digar Hakdaran Araji Hasab Rasad Rakba Khewat' without payment of compensation and for staying further alienation /carving out of Baras/plots and also restrained from changing the nature of the aforementioned land keeping in view the sequel of the facts mentioned below, in the interest of justice; and to issue a writ in the nature of Prohibition thereby staying carving out of Baras/plots or in the alternative, change of nature of land in question be stayed, in the interest of justice.
OR
to issue any other appropriate writ order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem, fit under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case in the interest of justice.”
6. Learned State counsel has reiterated his submissions and has stated that since in the present case, there are disputed questions of fact, thus, the main writ petition should not be entertained by the High Court and that the petitioners have a remedy of filing an application under Section 13-A of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.
7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has fairly submitted that in view of the same, the petitioners be permitted to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to institute a suit under Section 13-A of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. It is further submitted that the petitioners propose to file an application for stay along with the said suit and has prayed that the competent Court before whom the application would be filed, be directed to consider the stay application in a time bound manner.
8. Learned State counsel has submitted that they as well as the Gram Panchayat be permitted to raise all pleas to oppose the application and the suit.
9. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances and the fair stand taken on behalf of the petitioners and the respondents, the present writ petition is disposed of with the following observations / directions:-
i) It would be open to the petitioners to file a suit under Section 13-A of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 along with an application for stay.
ii) It would be open to all the parties to raise all pleas before the Competent Court and the Competent Court shall decide the same independently in accordance with law after hearing all the parties concerned.
iii) In case any application for stay is filed, the Competent Court is directed to consider the stay application within a period of three weeks from the date of filing of the said application and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
iv) It is made clear that this Court has not opined on the merits of the case and the same would be considered independently, in accordance with law.
10. It would be open to respondent no.4 Gram Panchayat to seek recalling of the present order in case they have any grievance regarding the same.
Order accordingly.
********