IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 112 CWP No.18909 of 2026 Date of decision: July 1st, 2026 Priyan Tyagi and another .....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present: Ms. Arzoo Modi and Mr. Sandeep Siwach, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. Saurabh Mago, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are the owners of the land in question prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 i.e. prior to 31.12.2013. 2. A perusal of the paper book would, however, show that no document has been annexed prior to 31.12.2013 to show that the petitioners were owners of the property in question. Even the details of the ownership have not been mentioned. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the same, the present petition be disposed of but liberty be granted to the petitioners to revive the same after annexing documents to show that the petitioners were owners of the property prior to the notification dated 31.12.2013 and also to specifically give the details of their ownership. 4. Disposed of with aforesaid liberty. (VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE July 1st, 2026 (SUBHAS MEHLA) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.07.01 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document Chandigarh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 112 CWP No.18909 of 2026 Date of decision: July 1st, 2026 Priyan Tyagi and another .....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present: Ms. Arzoo Modi and Mr. Sandeep Siwach, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. Saurabh Mago, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are the owners of the land in question prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 i.e. prior to 31.12.2013. 2. A perusal of the paper book would, however, show that no document has been annexed prior to 31.12.2013 to show that the petitioners were owners of the property in question. Even the details of the ownership have not been mentioned. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the same, the present petition be disposed of but liberty be granted to the petitioners to revive the same after annexing documents to show that the petitioners were owners of the property prior to the notification dated 31.12.2013 and also to specifically give the details of their ownership. 4. Disposed of with aforesaid liberty. (VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE July 1st, 2026 (SUBHAS MEHLA) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.07.01 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document Chandigarh