Sunehara v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Case at a glance
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. The petition, accordingly, stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court, if so advised.
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present:- Mr. Ankit Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Bhupender Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral) The petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents no.2 and 3, Deputy Commissioner and Superintendent of Police, Jind, respectively, to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation dated
08.06.2026, Annexure P-2, filed against respondent no.4/petitioner’s brother, who is employed as Assistant Sub Inspector in the police department, alleging that he is interfering with the petitioner’s possession and preventing him from cultivating the land.
Apparently, the petitioner has a dispute with his brother regarding possession of a joint land, for which the appropriate remedy is to approach the Civil Court.
The petition, accordingly, stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court, if so advised.
20.07.2026 Payal Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Yes/No Yes/No (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.