Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gram Panchayat Rasulpur vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 6 September, 2018
Bench: Mahesh Grover, Mahabir Singh Sindhu
CWP no.10741 of 2002 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP no.10741 of 2002 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 06.09.2018
Gram Panchayat Rasulpur
....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU
Present : Mr.Rajesh Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner(s)
Mr. Anil Mehta, DAG, Haryana
MAHESH GROVER, J.(ORAL)
On 16.7.2002 this petition was directed to be heard alongwith CWP no. 17609 of 2001 where the vires of the Haryana Amendment Act no.13 of 1996 had been challenged. The said writ petition has now been decided on the strength of decision rendered in CWP no. 4816 of 1996 titled as 'Gram Panchayat of Village Kum-Kalan vs. State of Punjab and others' decided on 7.4.2010 by upholding the vires of the Act and the said petition was dismissed.
Since the question of the vires has been determined in the related proceedings and the question of law raised in the present petition being the same, we would unhesitatingly adopt the same course in view of ratio of judgment rendered in CWP no.4816 of 1996 titled as 'Gram Panchayat of Village Kum-Kalan vs. State of Punjab and others' decided on 7.4.2010 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 07-10-2018 01:20:34 ::: CWP no.10741 of 2002 (O&M) 2 The petitioner further states that there are other issues involved in the instant petition and we have heard him on that score.
He has urged that Gram Panchayat was the owner of the land. Neither any record nor any material to that effect has been shown. Rather we have gone through the facts of the writ petition where land was allotted to Joginder Kaur from whom it was purchased by present respondent no.3- Ram Sarup. This sale is not denied by the petitioner. On an earlier occasion writ petition preferred by respondent no.3 bearing CWP no. 7468 of 1987 was also dismissed by this Court. It is noticed in the writ petition that the State Legislature has amended the Act, the vires of which were questioned by the petitioner in order to assert its rights but if the petition preferred by the respondent no.3 itself had been dismissed on an earlier point of time we are of the opinion that the issues raised by the petitioner lose its significance. The Act whose vires in question had protected the allotments made prior to 9.7.1985 there is thus no reason to interfere. Hence, instant petition is hereby dismissed.
(Mahesh Grover)
Judge
06.09.2018 (Mahabir Singh Sindhu)
rekha Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 07-10-2018 01:20:34 :::