AMAR NATH AND ANOTHER vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — CWP/18812/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226/227. Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 05th June 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 03-Jun-2026

CNR: PHHC010984512026

e-Filing Number

01-06-2026

Filing Number

CWP/36733/2026

Filing Date

01-Jun-2026

Registration No

CWP/18812/2026

Registration Date

01-Jun-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Sanjay Vashisth

Coram

Mr. Justice Sanjay Vashisth

Bench Type

Single

Category

18.11 - LAND LAWS S.B. ( 448 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

05-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 06-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226/227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AMAR NATH AND ANOTHER

    Adv. D.K. SHARMA

  2. 2.Amar Nath and another

  3. 3.Hari Ram

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

  2. 2.Amar Nath and another

  3. 3.Hari Ram

  4. 4.The Assistant Collector First Grade Jagadhri

  5. 5.Ambika Parshad

  6. 6.Meghwati

  7. 7.Anjo Devi alias Anju Devi

  8. 8.Santu Parshad alias Shiv Kumar

  9. 9.Jai Kumar alias Vijay Kumar

  10. 10.Sashi

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 05-Jun-2026

    Mr. Justice Sanjay VashisthView PDF

    The High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposed of the petition while directing that any warrant of possession be kept in abeyance until the petitioners' pending appeal is finally decided. The court mandated that the appellate authority expeditiously decide either the appeal itself or at least the interim stay application raised therein, recognizing the petitioners' statutory right to challenge the original order through appeal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 01-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/18812/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposed of the petition while directing that any warrant of possession be kept in abeyance until the petitioners' pending appeal is finally decided. The court mandated that the appellate authority expeditiously decide either the appeal itself or at least the interim stay application raised therein, recognizing the petitioners' statutory right to challenge the original order through appeal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case