C.W.P. No.2672 of 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.2672 of 1990 Date of Decision: 03.12.2010 Smt. Sarbati ……Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ……Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI -.- Present: Mr. Som Nath Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Jindal, D.A.G., Haryana. 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? AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This petition challenges the action of the respondents in retrieving 1.15 ¾ standard acres of land from the petitioner. The ground taken was that in view of the instructions issued under the Package Deal Properties Act the State had decided to rehabilitate Harijans by allotting them Package Deal properties (consisting of rural agricultural land) at reserved price but Harijans family should not have more than 5 standard acres of land in their possession in toto. Having found that the petitioner and her husband had C.W.P. No.2672 of 1990 -2- purchased 6-14 ¾ standard acres of land the present action was initiated. In the petition filed before the Settlement Commissioner, the petitioner categorically averred that out of the total land of 6-14 ¾ standard acres 1-14 ¼ standard acres was purchased by her husband on 28.12.1966 in an open auction but the said land had been sold by him on 22.08.1976 and, therefore, this land could not have been counted to compute the holding of the petitioner and her husband and the department without any reason has come to the conclusion that they have more than 5 standard acres of land. This fact was specifically admitted before the Settlement Commissioner by the respondents. Once that is so, the land could not have been counted in the holding of the petitioner and her husband. If this land is excluded then the petitioner and her husband had only one anna (1/16 standard acres) out of one standard acre which was excess. It may be noticed that when the petition was filed in the year 1990 the dispossession of the petitioner had been stayed. The fact that admittedly only one anna (1/16 acres of land) is extra, in my considered opinion, it would not be in the interest of justice to permit the respondents to retrieve this small piece of land. The petitioner has now been in settled possession of this land for the last more than 30 years. Consequently this writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders Annexures P-1, P-2, P-3 and P-6 are set aside. C.W.P. No.2672 of 1990 -3- ( AJAY TEWARI ) December 03, 2010 JUDGE ashish