Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sajjan And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 26 February, 2014
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
C.W.P. No. 11441 of 2011 [ 1 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 11441 of 2011
Date of Decision:26.2.2014
Sajjan and others ...................................... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ................ Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri
1.To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. Navmohit Singh, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. C.S.Bakshi, Addl. A.G.Haryana.
Mr. Anil Ghangas, Advocate
for respondent No.4.
...
RITU BAHRI, J.
Challenge in this petition is to the Resolution dated 22.9.2008 (Annexure P-4) whereby the Gram Panchayat-respondent No.4 has decided to carve out 100- 100 sq. yards residential plots comprising in Khasra No.29 as per the Policy of the Government dated 1.2.2008 (Annexure P3) to the families of Scheduled Caste and persons who are living below the poverty line. The main grievance of the petitioner is that as per the Jamabandi for the year 2008-09 the land has been reflected to be shown as "Johar Ramsara" Kaur Rupinder 2014.03.04 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
C.W.P. No. 11441 of 2011 [ 2 ] comprising in Khasra No.29 and in the cultivation record it is recorded as Makbooja Abnoshi Kundgan as per Jamabandi Annexure P2. There was a resentment amongst the member of Gram Sabha as the land which was meant for Johar is used by the cattle of the village for taking bath and there is no other Johar in the village Ninan. If the plots are carved out the water would be stopped and there was a threat to the entire Abadi Deh of the village. The village Ninan is having a population of 2500/3000 people and has about 1000 cattle. If plots are carved out of the Johar land there would be difficulty for the cattle as well as the residents.
On notice, reply has been filed by the Special Secretary to Govt. of Haryana on behalf of respondent No.1 and the stand in paragraph 2 is as under:-
"That in village Ninan, there are four Johar having total area 155 kanal 3 Marla. That Government of Haryana acquired 10 Acres of Shamlat land for water works to facilitate the population of Bhiwani City and there is no other Shamlat land except Khasra No.29 total measuring 155K-3M. That the pond exists only on 2 acres of land and the level of land given for plots is higher than that of the level of pond water. The Gram Panchayat of Village Ninan is carving out 100 sq.yards plots only in about 24 Kanal by passing resolution No.1 Kaur Rupinder 2014.03.04 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 11441 of 2011 [ 3 ] dated 22.9.2011 and rest of land will remain intact. It is also submitted that in past the Johar Upranh land was reserved to store water in pond and now the ponds are watered through canal water. Hence land of Johar situated near Abadhi Deh is not of much use and the Gram Panchayat is carving out the plots for residential purpose in the above said land for betterment and upliftment of weaker-sections. It is also submitted that it has been provided in the Act that Shamlat land vested in Gram Panchayat can be used only in the manner and for the purpose given under amended rule 3 of Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Rule 1964 and one of these purpose is the carving out plots for weaker sections of society."
In the paragraph it is stated that there are four Johars in the village and Gram Panchayat is making to use of the land for betterment of the village poor society and at the same time taking into consideration the natural flow of water. Out of 155 kanals 3 Marla of land 24 Kanal has been sealed to carve out plots and the rest of the land is for tethering the cattles. As per Rule 3 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Rule 1964 as amended on 3.1.2008 and 14.11.2011 the Panchayat can, after the Kaur Rupinder 2014.03.04 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 11441 of 2011 [ 4 ] approval of competent authority, make use of the shamlat land for residential purposes as per entry:-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
25 residential.
Sub clause 3 of Section 2(g) of the Act is reproduced as under:-
"(3) lands described in the revenue records as shamilat tarafs, pattis, pannas and tholas and used according to revenue records for the benefit of the village community or a part thereof or for common purposes of the village."
Counsel for the Gram Panchayat-respondent No.4 has made a statement on instructions that they will leave the 02 acre land where pond exists and 02 acre more around that area of the pond and thereafter make the necessary allotments as per resolution. The scheme framed by the State of Haryana on 1.2.2008 for allotment of 100 sq. yard plots to families of Scheduled Caste and families living below the poverty line was challenged by way of a writ petition in the case of Rajbir Singh v. State of Haryana and others 2010 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 243. The policy was upheld by Kaur Rupinder 2014.03.04 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 11441 of 2011 [ 5 ] observing that the land of Shamlat Deh was in the ownership of the Gram Panchayat as per Section 2(g) of the Act. The petitioner had no cause to challenge the said scheme for utilization of the land. The proprietors have no ownership thereon. All lands which were reserved for common purposes whether utilized or not shall vest in the State Government. While reference was made to communication dated 14.8.2009 which provided for implementing the scheme for allotment of 100-100 sq. yards plots they shall reserve 25% of the total land as Shamlat land for future common needs of the inhabitants of the village. The writ petition was dismissed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was upheld in L.P.A. No. 1322 of 2009 (Gurmukh Singh and another v. State of Haryana and others) decided on January 08,2010.
In the present case the scheme has been upheld by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 1322 of 2009. Moreover, in view of the statement of the counsel for respondent No.4 that the Gram Panchayat will not allot 2 acres land which forms part of the pond along with surrounding 2 acres of land, the writ petition is dismissed.
( RITU BAHRI ) 26.2.2014 JUDGE rupi Kaur Rupinder 2014.03.04 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh