Punjab-Haryana High Court
Norti Ram vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 14 October, 2014
Bench: Surya Kant, Shekher Dhawan
CWP No.15247 of 2013 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.15247 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision:- 14.10.2014.
Norti Ram
......Petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana and others
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEKHER DHAWAN
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?
Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Patter, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Mr. I.P.S. Mangat, Advocate for
respondent No.3.
Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate for
respondent No.4.
****
SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner impugns the order dated 2.7.2013 (Annexure P-6) passed by Deputy Commissioner, Karnal declining to approve the sale of land measuring 175 square yards owned by the Gram Panchayat where the petitioner has raised some unauthorized construction.
2. It is not in dispute that earlier the Gram Panchayat SANDEEP SETHI 2014.11.26 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No.15247 of 2013 (O&M) -2- filed eviction petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 as applicable to State of Haryana and an order of eviction was passed against the petitioner way back in December, 1991. That eviction order has since attained finality. It appears that when the Gram Panchayat wanted to execute the eviction order, the petitioner applied to purchase the subject land. The case of the Gram Panchayat is that the possession of the land was earlier taken in execution of the eviction order but the petitioner again forcibly occupied the same.
3. Be that as it may, the petitioner applied to purchase the aforesaid land under Rule 12 (4) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 and the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution in his favour. The aforesaid Rule requires approval of the competent authority, namely, the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal who has vide the impugned order declined to accord approval after observing that the entire khasra number is reserved as a playground for the school and that affluent persons cannot be allowed to purchase the Gram Panchayat land for extraneous considerations. The order declining approval is now under challenge in this writ petition.
4. It may also be mentioned at this stage that the Gram Panchayat has now changed its stand and has resolved not to sell the subject land as it forms part of the playground of the school. The official respondents have also taken their stand to the same SANDEEP SETHI 2014.11.26 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No.15247 of 2013 (O&M) -3- effect.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. There is hardly any dispute with reference to the photograph (Annexure R-3/2) which clearly shows that the petitioner has got a separate residential house and at the site in dispute he raised structure which is apparently used for domestic cattle etc. It is not a residential house. From the photograph relied upon by the petitioner (Annexure P-4), we are satisfied that the construction raised by him is hardly 5-7 years old and it is not a residential house.
6. On the other hand, the Gram Panchayat as well as the official respondents have come up with a categoric stand that the land in dispute is part of the playground of the school which adjoins this plot though this land has been segregated by way of a fare-wall.
7. Having given our thoughtful consideration and on waiving the petitioner's private interest vis-a-vis the public interest, namely, the use of land as a playground for the school children, we are of the considered view that the authorities have rightly declined to accord approval for the sale of Gram Panchayat land. It is not a case of extreme hardship as the petitioner has already got a residential house of 'A' class construction. In any case, no one can be allowed to use the land earmarked for public purpose like playground of the school, for private purposes. No fault, thus, can be found with the order under challenge. The writ petition is thus dismissed directing SANDEEP SETHI 2014.11.26 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No.15247 of 2013 (O&M) -4- the petitioner to hand over vacant possession of the land to the Gram Panchahat within one month.
8. We further direct the Gram Panchayat in public interest to get the entire area of the playground demarcated and construct a fare-wall by including the subject land as a part of the school compound. If need be, the State Government and the Deputy Commissioner are also directed to release additional grant for the aforesaid purpose. The Deputy Commissioner, Karnal shall ensure the compliance of these directions and a compliance report be sent to the Registrar General before 30.06.2015.
(SURYA KANT) JUDGE (SHEKHER DHAWAN) JUDGE October 14, 2014.
sandeep sethi SANDEEP SETHI 2014.11.26 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document