IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 23356 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : 15.12.2011 Balbir Singh and others .... PETITIONERS Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. ( Oral ) The petitioners, who are residents of village Bandh, Tehsil Ishrana, District Panipat, have filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuing direction to respondents No.1 and 2 to take action against Gram Panchayat of the village (respondent No.3 herein), who has allotted 100 square yard plots to the ineligible persons, contrary to the policy dated 1.2.2008 (Annexure P-1). It has been stated that out of 145 residents of the village, belonging to the Scheduled Caste, Backward Class and Below Poverty Line categories, whose names were recommended for allotment of 100 square yards plots under the aforesaid policy, most of the persons were ineligible for such allotments and some of them were already allotted plots under the similar policy and they have been again allotted plots. It has been stated that large scale bungling has been committed in the allotment of plots under the CWP No. 23356 of 2011 -2- policy dated 1.2.2008 (Annexure P-1) and totally ineligible persons have been allotted plots. In this way, the Gram Panchayat of the village, Sarpanch and members of the Gram Panchayat have mis-used their position by allotting plots to the ineligible persons. It is further the case of the petitioners that they have brought this fact to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner, Panipat (respondent No.2 herein), but no action has been taken. Notice of motion to Advocate General, Haryana. On our asking, Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, who is present in Court, accepts notice. Copy of the petition has been handed over to him. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in view of the aforesaid facts, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to make a detailed representation to respondent No.2, pointing out the ineligibility of the persons, who have been wrongly allotted the plots under the aforesaid policy. If any such representation is made by the petitioners within a period of one month from today, respondent No.2 is directed to consider and decide the same, after holding an enquiry in accordance with law, within a period of three months thereafter, by passing a speaking order. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE December 15, 2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) ndj JUDGE