C.W.P No. 9222 of 1990 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 9222 of 1990 Date of decision : December 08, 2010 Nasib Singh, ...... Petitioner v. Collector, Kurukshetra and others, ...... Respondents *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. C.B.Goel, Advocate and Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Gupta, DAG Haryana for respondent Nos.1 and 2. None for respondents No.3 and 4. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 29.8.1989 and 12.6.1990 (Annexures P-3 and P-4 respectively) whereby the eviction of the petitioner under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation ) Act, 1961 (as applicable to Haryana) from the land in dispute has been ordered. After arguing for some time, counsel for the petitioner has C.W.P No. 9222 of 1990 ::2:: relied upon an amendment made to sub rule (4) of Rule 12 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 (as applicable to Haryana), which reads as follows :- “ 12(4) The Gram Panchayat may with the prior approval of Deputy Commissioner concerned, sell its non-cultivable land in shamilat deh to the inhabitants of the village who have constructed their houses on or before the 31st March, 2000, not resulting in any obstruction to the traffic and passers-by, along with open space upto 25% of the constructed area or an appurtenant area upto a maximum of 200 square yards at not less than collector rate.” Counsel for the petitioner has argued that in this case, admittedly, the petitioner has constructed his house more than 40 years ago and that in any case he would be entitled to the benefit of the above sub- rule. In my opinion, the argument of the counsel is tenable. Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner moves an application, as per the above sub-rule, to respondent No.1, the shall be considered and decided, in accordance with law, by passing a speaking order within a period of three months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. Till then, the interim order passed in favour of the petitioner shall continue. ( AJAY TEWARI ) December 08, 2010. JUDGE `kk'