IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB
AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
LPA No. 1144 of 2011 (O&M)
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'].
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.
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. 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 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.
(M.M.
KUMAR)
JUDGE
(GURDEV SINGH)
JUDGE
JUDGE
No comments:
Post a Comment