HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU
Present: Mr. Vikram
Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. Advocate General,
Haryana.
Mr. R. K. Agnihotri, Advocate for respondent No. 3.
Rajesh Bindal J.
Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 17.2.2014 (Annexure
P-9), passed by respondent No. 2, vide which the request made by the petitioner
for allotment of five marlas of land to him, on which he had allegedly constructed
a house in the year 1980, was rejected. The petitioner had earlier filed CWP
No. 12824 of 2012 challenging the order dated 23.6.2011 rejecting his prayer
for purchase of that portion of land. In that petition, while quashing the
order, direction was issued for consideration of his claim. Now the claim has
been rejected while recording a finding that khasra number, on the part of
which the petitioner has allegedly constructed the house is, in fact, village
pond as per the revenue record.
The aforesaid fact, as such, is not disputed, however,
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that some other residents of the
village have also constructed houses on the land recorded as village pond in
the 1 of 3 CWP No. 11974 of 2015 [2] revenue record. Hon'ble the Supreme Court
in Hinch
Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi and others, (2001) 6 SCC 496; Jagpal
Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, (2011) 3 SCC (Civil) 694 and
Meghwal Samaj Shiksha Samiti v. Lakh Singh and others, (2011) 11 SCC 800 and
this court following the aforesaid judgments in CWP No. 3221 of 2011 Rajpal and another
v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 22.11.2012 deprecated allotment
of plots or land, which is recorded as village pond in the revenue record. In
Jagpal Singh and others' case (supra), directions were given to all the State
Governments to prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/ unathorized occupants
of Gram Panchayat/shamlat land and for restoration thereof for common use of
villagers. It was observed therein that areas were ear- marked for water bodies
in village for use by the cattles and to work as traditional rain water
harvesting methods. In case residents of the village are allowed to construct
houses thereon, the whole object will be defeated. For the reasons mentioned
above, we do not find any merit in the present petition.
The same is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal)
Judge
(Harinder Singh Sidhu)
Judge
17.4.2017
No comments:
Post a Comment