AMAN KUMAR vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — CWP/11140/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: --DISMISSED on 10th April 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 10-Apr-2026

CNR: PHHC010595282026

e-Filing Number

07-04-2026

Filing Number

CWP/21186/2026

Filing Date

08-Apr-2026

Registration No

CWP/11140/2026

Registration Date

08-Apr-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar

Coram

Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar

Category

20.11 - SCOSB (HARYANA) ( 453 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

10-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 12-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AMAN KUMAR

    Adv. SANDEEP PARKASH CHAHAR

  2. 2.Aman Kumar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

  2. 2.Aman Kumar

  3. 3.Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam

  4. 4.Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited

  5. 5.Chief Engineer Admn

  6. 6.Chief Engineer

  7. 7.Deputy Commissioner

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh BrarView PDF

    Summary The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Aman Kumar's petition seeking employment under Haryana's land acquisition rehabilitation policy, holding that he was barred by delay and laches. The petitioner waited 17 years (2007–2024) to approach the court despite a 2007 policy granting one family member employment for acquired land exceeding 2 acres, and provided no reasonable explanation for the inordinate delay. The court emphasized that "delay defeats equity" and that writ courts should not encourage indolent litigants. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/11140/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Aman Kumar's petition seeking employment under Haryana's land acquisition rehabilitation policy, holding that he was barred by delay and laches. The petitioner waited 17 years (2007–2024) to approach the court despite a 2007 policy granting one family member employment for acquired land exceeding 2 acres, and provided no reasonable explanation for the inordinate delay. The court emphasized that "delay defeats equity" and that writ courts should not encourage indolent litigants. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case