Panchkula’s Rs 200-cr land row: Commissioner orders fresh review of ownership share

16 Jun 2026 • 3:54 AM MYT
Tribune
Tribune

Breaking news, top headlines, in-depth analysis, & exclusive stories

Image from: Panchkula’s Rs 200-cr land row: Commissioner orders fresh review of ownership share

The long-running dispute over the ownership of nearly 72 bighas (more than 18 acres) of prime land in Sector 31 (Chowki village), Panchkula, valued at over Rs 200 crore, has taken a fresh turn with the Commissioner, Ambala Division, remanding the matter to the District Collector, Panchkula, for a fresh determination of the share of M/s Polo Hotels Limited and its owner, AR Dahiya.

While disposing of an appeal filed by the Municipal Corporation, Panchkula, Ambala Divisional Commissioner Sanjeev Verma directed the District Collector to re-examine the revenue records, acquisition proceedings and other relevant documents in light of fresh facts that emerged during the proceedings. The land had earlier been granted Change of Land Use permission, and the well-known Hotel North Park restaurant operated from the site.

The Municipal Corporation had challenged an order passed by the then District Collector, Sushil Sarwan, on January 16, 2024. The civic body argued that the land had become part of the Municipal Corporation after the expansion of Panchkula’s municipal limits and that the erstwhile Gram Panchayat of Chowki village no longer existed.

According to the Municipal Corporation, the land had vested in the Gram Panchayat under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act and, after the merger of the village into municipal limits, became the property of the Municipal Corporation. It also contended that the District Collector had no jurisdiction to decide the title of the land under the Act and that such disputes could only be adjudicated by a civil court.

M/s Polo Hotels Limited and its owner, AR Dahiya, contested the claim, maintaining that their predecessors were co-sharers in the shamlat land and had been cultivating it prior to January 26, 1950. They argued that the land qualified for exclusion from the definition of shamlat land under the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act.

During the proceedings, the Commissioner sought a detailed report from the present District Collector, Satpal Sharma, regarding the ownership claims.

The report revealed that the vendors of M/s Polo Hotels and their ancestors were recorded in revenue records well before January 26, 1950, including Jamabandi records for 1918-19, 1922-23, 1926-27, 1930-31, 1934-35, 1938-39, and 1942-43. It further noted that the first settlement (bandobast) of Chowki village was conducted in 1905-06 and reflected in the 1920 records.

Referring to the report, Verma observed that the District Collector had established the share and cultivating possession of the respondents’ predecessors prior to January 26, 1950, on the basis of old revenue records. The land in question thus fell under the exclusion clause of ‘shamlat deh’ under the Village Common Lands Act.

He further noted, “The learned counsel for the appellant (Municipal Corporation, Panchkula) had also not raised any other objection regarding the factum of share and cultivating possession.”

The Commissioner concluded that the District Collector’s report had established the entitlement of M/s Polo Hotels Limited and AR Dahiya to the shamlat land.

However, during the appeal proceedings, the Municipal Corporation pointed out that 15 bighas and 13 biswas out of the disputed land had been acquired by the state government in 1990 and that the predecessors of M/s Polo Hotels and AR Dahiya had reportedly received compensation for the acquired land.

Accepting that this contention required examination, Verma observed, “There is force in the contention of the Municipal Corporation.” He directed the District Collector to scrutinise the revenue record, acquisition proceedings and other relevant documents to determine the exact deduction to be made from the share of the predecessors of M/s Polo Hotels and AR Dahiya.

Accordingly, the Commissioner remanded the matter to the District Collector, Panchkula, for fresh determination of the share after considering the impact of the 1990 land acquisition.

Following a complaint, on June 1, the Director, Urban Local Bodies Department, sought a report from DC Panchkula into the matter.