Punjab-Haryana High Court
Khubi Ram And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 28 January, 2014
Bench: Surya Kant, Amol Rattan Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.1563 of 2014
Date of Decision: January 28, 2014
Khubi Ram and others .....Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH.
Present : Mr.Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Ms.Palika Monga, Deputy AG, Haryana.
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
Notice of motion.
On our asking, Ms.Palika Monga, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
Let two copies of the writ petition be supplied to the learned State Counsel during the course of day failing which this order shall be automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for non- prosecution.
In view of the nature of order which we propose to pass, there is no need to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage.
The petitioners who are residents of village Bhondsi, Tehsil and District Gurgaon belong to the downtrodden section of society. They were given 100 square yard plots pursuant to a resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat in the year 1985-86. It appears that due to expanded urbanization, the plots given to the petitioners were Kumar Mohinder 2014.02.21 15:39 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.1563 of 2014 [2] obstructing widening of the road and the green belt in the urban area of Gurgaon. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL), i.e., CWP No.2910 of 2012 (Adhikaar, the Rights Path versus State of Haryana and others) was filed by an NGO in which the petitioner-allottees were also impleaded as party-respondents. One of the issue raised in the PIL was that the very allotment and construction on some of the plots has been made in violation of the provisions of Punjab Schedule Roads and Controlled Area Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (for short, '1963 Act'). The PIL was disposed of by this Court on the basis of a stand taken by the State of Haryana in terms whereof the official-respondents agreed to allot alternative plots to the petitioners and other allottees and an affidavit was filed that they shall be given plots either under the EWS Scheme or any other alternative scheme.
There is no denial to the fact that pursuant to the above-stated undertaking, the district administration has carved out 64 plots and after preparing the site plan, draw of lots has also been held on 28.03.2013. The alternative sites too are located in village Bhondsi comprising the gram panchayat land. The petitioners are, however, unhappy with the above- stated decision of the State Government as, according to them, (i) the sites allotted to them in the year 1985-86 do not violate the provisions of 1963 Act; (ii) the sites now being offered are uneven and undeveloped; (iii) the new sites are in the prohibited zone of BSF firing range and (iv) the new sites are apparently located in the forest area.
Consequently, the petitioners seek a direction that they should be allowed to retain the old sites.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we Kumar Mohinder 2014.02.21 15:39 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.1563 of 2014 [3] are of the considered view that the main relief sought in this writ petition is directly in conflict with the order passed by this Court in the above-mentioned PIL. Consequently, the petitioners' claim for retention of the same sites cannot be accepted. The sites/plots earlier allotted to the petitioners were found to be needed for widening of the road and for the green belt.
Since the respondents have resolved to allot alternative plots to the petitioners for which draw of lots has already been held, the ancillary issues raised by the petitioners for providing basic amenities, leveling of the land or to ensure their safety, can be effectively addressed by issuing appropriate directions. We, thus, dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondent-authorities to ensure that the alternative plots allotted to the petitioners do not compromise with their safety being allegedly close to the fire range of BSF and basic amenities as are available to other residents of village Bhondsi, are also extended to the petitioners. The needful shall be done as early as possible but not later than six months from the date the petitioners take possession of the alternative sites. Similarly, those of the petitioners who have raised construction over the plots allotted to them in the year 1985-86, shall be entitled to compensation for their respective structures which shall be assessed by the authorities in accordance with law.
Dasti.
[SURYA KANT]
JUDGE
January 28, 2014 [AMOL RATTAN SINGH]
Mohinder JUDGE
Kumar Mohinder
2014.02.21 15:39
I attest to the accuracy of this
order
Chandigarh