Chandigarh: Dr. Ashok Khemka, a 1991-batch former IAS officer of the Haryana cadre, has sought an independent investigation into the revenue orders concerning around 15 acres of disputed land in Panchkula’s erstwhile Chowki village, while urging the state government to take immediate steps to protect the property from further transfer or development.
In an August 25 communication to Haryana Chief Minister Nayab Singh Saini, the former IAS officer sought a review of orders that recognised Polo Hotels Limited and its director Abhey Ram Dahiya as owners of the disputed land. Khemka also called for revision proceedings against the orders and suggested an independent probe, preferably by the CBI.
The dispute has gained renewed significance following an August 3, 2026 Supreme Court ruling on the legal requirements for excluding shamlat deh (village common) land from the scope of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The ruling has prompted fresh scrutiny of the revenue orders concerning the Panchkula land.
What Has Khemka Asked the Haryana Government to Do?
Khemka has urged the state government to initiate several measures to prevent the disputed land from changing hands or being developed while the matter is examined.
Read Also: Who Is IAS Gyanendra Kumar Gangwar? Karnataka Officer Suspended Amid KPSC Recruitment Probe
Key demands include:
- Revision proceedings against the May 13, 2026 order of the Ambala divisional commissioner and the January 16, 2024 order of the Panchkula district collector.
- Obtaining the village’s sharat-wajib-ul-arz and all available jamabandis and revenue documents.
- Preparation of an authenticated correlation statement linking the pre-consolidation khasra numbers with the present khasra numbers 68/5/2, 69 and 73/3.
- Suspension of any further transfer, alienation, mortgage, subdivision, licence, construction or development involving the land until the dispute is decided.
- Keeping the change of land use (CLU) and other planning approvals in abeyance.
- Obtaining an official valuation of the property at prevailing market rates.
- An inquiry by an independent investigating agency, preferably the CBI, into the conduct of the defence in the matter.
Why Is the 15-Acre Land Dispute Under Scrutiny?
The Panchkula district collector, in an order dated January 16, 2024, had recognised Polo Hotels Ltd and Abhey Ram Dahiya as owners of around 15 acres and held that the land was not an asset of the erstwhile Chowki gram panchayat and therefore could not have vested in the municipal corporation.
Panchkula Municipal Corporation challenged the decision. However, the Ambala divisional commissioner on May 13, 2026, affirmed the collector’s findings regarding the ownership claim.
The municipal corporation had maintained that the land had not been partitioned and that the proprietors were not in individual cultivating possession before January 26, 1950.
Polo Hotels and its director, on the other hand, had claimed ownership through predecessors and purchasers from the original village proprietors. Their case relied on historical revenue records and the contention that the land had been in the cultivating possession of co-sharers before the statutory cut-off date.
The Supreme Court Rule
The Supreme Court’s August 3 judgment in Suraj Bhan and Others v. Ashvarya Estate Pvt. Ltd. and Others examined the requirements for land to qualify for exclusion from shamlat deh under the 1961 law.
The court held that merely demonstrating possession by village proprietors before January 26, 1950 is not enough. A claimant seeking exclusion must establish the applicable statutory conditions, including that the land was partitioned before the cut-off date and subsequently brought into individual cultivating possession.
The judgment observed that the expression makbuja malkan generally reflects joint possession of the proprietary body and cannot, by itself, establish individual cultivating possession after partition.
This ruling has potentially significant implications for the Panchkula dispute because the earlier revenue orders did not appear to record specific findings establishing that the disputed land had been partitioned before January 26, 1950.
What Did Khemka Say About the Revenue Records?
Khemka has challenged the reasoning based on the possession entries in the 1942-43 jamabandi and subsequent records.
He wrote:
“That is not the statutory test. Section 2(g)(viii) requires three things cumulatively: that the land was shamlat deh, that it was assessed to land revenue, and that it was in the individual cultivating possession of co-sharers not exceeding their respective shares on or before January 26, 1950.”
He further pointed to gaps in the revenue record, saying the jamabandis from 1962-63 to 1974-75 were missing and that there was no jamabandi between the 1942-43 record and January 26, 1950.
According to Khemka, the crucial statutory question concerning the position of the land on January 26, 1950 could not be answered merely by drawing presumptions from records before and after that date.
Khemka Says Immediate Action Is Needed
Khemka said the matter involved roughly 15 acres of prime land in Sector 32, Panchkula and argued that delay could make any eventual restitution more difficult.
“A decree has been passed and affirmed on appeal, which transfers roughly 15 acres of prime land in Sector 32, Panchkula out of the public domain and into private hands.”
He also said:
“I place the matter before you because the remedy is still open, but it will not remain open indefinitely, and because every month of delay makes restitution harder and third party equities heavier.”
Khemka said he was raising the issue in the public interest, drawing on his more than nine years of experience as Haryana’s financial commissioner.
What Happens Next?
Khemka has urged the Haryana government to initiate revision proceedings before the Financial Commissioner and protect the disputed property from further transactions or development while the matter is examined.
The Supreme Court’s recent interpretation of the requirements governing shamlat deh land has added a significant legal dimension to the dispute. The central question now is whether the ownership claim over the Panchkula land satisfies the statutory conditions required for the property to remain outside the village commons framework.
About Ashok Khemka
Dr. Ashok Khemka is a 1991-batch IAS officer of the Haryana cadre who served in the state administration for more than three decades before retiring in April 2025. His career included senior assignments across several departments, including transport, archives, archaeology, science and technology, social welfare and sports.
Khemka became nationally known after cancelling the mutation of a land deal involving Robert Vadra’s company and DLF in 2012. He was subsequently transferred numerous times during his Haryana cadre career.
The former officer has also previously sought independent investigations into matters involving public assets and government decision-making, making his intervention in the Panchkula land dispute consistent with his long-standing focus on administrative and public-interest issues.
Read Also: Gujarat Man Arrested in Indore for Allegedly Posing as IAS Officer, Collector
