IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15819 of 2011 Date of Decision: September 15, 2011 Harbhajan Ram ...Petitioner Versus Union of India & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 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.Jagdeep S.Virk, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has moved an application for allotment of land comprising in Khasra No.234/1/3 (0 kanal 7 marlas), Khewat No.258, Khatoni No.296, situated in village Todarpur, Tehsil Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur under the Punjab Package Deals Properties (Disposal) Rules, 1976 (for short “1976 Rules”). The petitioner claims to be in possession of the land from more than 100 years and has constructed a cattle shed, room and other necessary construction. The petitioner claims to be using this land for storing fodder for the cattle. The petitioner has also filed a representation that the land is adjoining his house and is within the area of a village. Respondent No.3 ordered respondent No.4 to consider the application. The petitioner has also filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against respondent No.5 as he was interfering in his peaceful possession. Now the petitioner has come to know that respondent No.2 has passed an order for converting this land into Anganwari Centre. The petitioner has accordingly filed this writ Civil Writ Petition No.15819 of 2011 : 2 : petition to issue direction to the respondents to allot this land on a restricted price under 1976 Rules and to direct respondent Nos.2 to 6 not to interfere in his peaceful possession. The petitioner has already filed a civil suit where he can claim the relief for protecting his possession. In fact, the petitioner has filed a suit for grant of injunction for the same very purpose. Whether the petitioner would have a right to get this land allotted under the 1976 Rules would be an issue, which would not be amenable to writ jurisdiction. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner may pursue his remedy before the civil Court. September 15, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE