Punjab & Haryana HC in Ramesh Kumar & Others vs State of Haryana And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

LPA No. 1144 of 2011 (O&M)

Date of Decision: August 23, 2011

Ramesh Kumar and others (...Appellants)

Versus

State of Haryana and others (...Respondents)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR JUSTICE

                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH

Present: 

Mr. Mahavir Sandhu, Advocate, for the appellants.

Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Addl. AG, Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

Mr. Satish Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No. 4.

********************************************************* 

1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

M.M. KUMAR, J.

*********************************************************

1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against an interlocutory/interim order dated 2.6.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge. The writ petition, namely, CWP No. 1343 of 2011, has been admitted but the interim orders staying utilisation of land for allotment of 100 Sq. Yards plots was vacated. The controversy raised in the instant appeal is whether the land in question could be regarded as shamilat deh within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 (as applicable to the State of Haryana) [for brevity, 'the Act']. LPA No. 1144 of 2011 (O&M) 2

2. Mr. Mahavir Sandhu, learned counsel for the appellants has placed on record additional documents (Annexures A-1 to A-4) and have asserted that the land cannot be regarded as shamilat deh because it is not being used for village common purposes. According to the learned counsel the land is mutated in the name of individual Patti Holders, some of whom are the appellants. He has drawn our pointed attention to the revenue record in the form of Khasra Girdawaries (A-1) pertaining to the period 16.10.2007 to 15.3.2011; Mutation Hadbast No. 298, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar (A-2, A-3 and A-4). He has also cited the provisions of the Act to argue that until and unless a piece of land is used for village common purposes, it would be excluded from the definition of shamilat deh.

3. Mr. Aman Chaudhary, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, has, however, pointed out that the writ petition has been admitted and no written statement could be filed before the learned Single Judge. He has, however, placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Gurmukh Singh and another v. State of Haryana and others (LPA No. 1322 of 2009, decided on 8.1.2010) as also judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Jagpal Singh and others v. others, 1123.

State of Punjab and others, AIR 2011 SC 1123

4. In view of the above, we direct the respondent State of Haryana to file reply to the writ petition within a period of four weeks and place on record all the relevant revenue record to enable the Court to decide whether the land in question could be regarded as shamilat deh or not. The stay matter is relegated back LPA No. 1144 of 2011 (O&M) 3 to the learned Single Judge to decide afresh after taking into consideration the documents which may be brought before the learned Single Judge by way of replication by the appellants. The parties shall maintain status quo as it exists today.

5. The appeal stands disposed of.

JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR

JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH

August 23, 2011 JUDGE P kapoor