CWP-27600-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (115) CWP-27600-2026 Date of Decision: - 27.08.2026 Om Parkash ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DIVYA SHARMA Present:- Mr. Preetwinder Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pradeep Prakash Chahar, Addl. A.G., Haryana. **** VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) 1. Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the notice dated 19.08.2026 (Annexure P-7) and notice dated 30.09.2025 (Annexure P-4). Further a prayer has been made that the respondents be restrained from evicting the petitioner from the land in question. 2. Learned State counsel has pointed out that in the present case, brother of the petitioner, namely, Kuldeep, had earlier challenged the notice dated 30.09.2025, which has been challenged in the present writ petition, by filing CWP-37688-2025, which writ petition was NARESH KUMAR 2026.08.31 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-27600-2026 -2-

withdrawn on 19.12.2025 with the limited prayer that his representation for purchase under Section 5A(1A) of the Haryana Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 for the regularization of the unauthorized possession be considered. It is further submitted that when the said representation was rejected, the said brother of the petitioner, namely, Kuldeep again filed a petition bearing CWP-22882-2026 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 05.08.2026. It is stated that now the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the same notice dated 30.09.2025 after a delay of 11 months without mentioning about the earlier two writ petitions filed by his brother. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the same, the petitioner be permitted to withdraw the present writ petition. 4. Dismissed as withdrawn, as prayed for. (VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE (DIVYA SHARMA) JUDGE August 27, 2026 naresh.k Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No NARESH KUMAR 2026.08.31 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-27600-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (115) CWP-27600-2026 Date of Decision: - 27.08.2026 Om Parkash ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DIVYA SHARMA Present:- Mr. Preetwinder Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pradeep Prakash Chahar, Addl. A.G., Haryana. **** VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) 1. Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the notice dated 19.08.2026 (Annexure P-7) and notice dated 30.09.2025 (Annexure P-4). Further a prayer has been made that the respondents be restrained from evicting the petitioner from the land in question. 2. Learned State counsel has pointed out that in the present case, brother of the petitioner, namely, Kuldeep, had earlier challenged the notice dated 30.09.2025, which has been challenged in the present writ petition, by filing CWP-37688-2025, which writ petition was NARESH KUMAR 2026.08.31 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-27600-2026 -2-

withdrawn on 19.12.2025 with the limited prayer that his representation for purchase under Section 5A(1A) of the Haryana Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 for the regularization of the unauthorized possession be considered. It is further submitted that when the said representation was rejected, the said brother of the petitioner, namely, Kuldeep again filed a petition bearing CWP-22882-2026 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 05.08.2026. It is stated that now the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the same notice dated 30.09.2025 after a delay of 11 months without mentioning about the earlier two writ petitions filed by his brother. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the same, the petitioner be permitted to withdraw the present writ petition. 4. Dismissed as withdrawn, as prayed for. (VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE (DIVYA SHARMA) JUDGE August 27, 2026 naresh.k Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No NARESH KUMAR 2026.08.31 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document