IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13620 of 2010 Date of decision: 3rd August, 2010 Balwinder Kaur … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sanjeev Manrai, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Respondent No.3-Surjit Kaur belongs to the lowest-strata and downtrodden section of the society. She could muster courage to contest election against the mighty of village Gram Panchayat Abadi Kartarpur, Block Sanaur, District Patiala. She won the election and was elected as a Panch of the village. A complaint was made that she was in illegal possession of the Shamlat land of the Gram Panchayat. The entire edifice of case of the petitioner-complainant is built upon the demarcation report dated (Annexure P-1), wherein it was stated that Surjit Kaur wife of Santokh Singh was in unauthorized possession of Khasra Nos. 113 and 114. An enquiry was held by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Block Sanaur, Patiala vide Annexure P-2. He also reiterated the demarcation report. A show-cause-notice was issued to respondent No.3. She took a categoric stand that she had been allotted a plot measuring 14 feet X 75 feet in Khasra Nos.113 and 114 under a scheme floated by Civil Writ Petition No.13620 of 2010 the Government, whereby landless/houseless people were to be given plots. It is stated that a resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat on 7th July, 1997 that plots be allotted to 36 persons, wherein the name of respondent No.3 was entered at serial number 25. Furthermore, it was her case that in this Khasra number, toilets have been constructed under a scheme, viz. Indra Avas Yojna. A perusal of the demarcation report (Annexure P-1) and enquiry report (Annexure P-2) nowhere reveals as to which specific area of Khasra Nos. 113 and 114 was in possession of respondent No.3. The order (Annexure P-4) passed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab is also silent on this aspect. Though respondent No.3 pleaded that the said plot had been allotted to her, yet she was suspended. Aggrieved against the same, respondent No.3 filed an appeal. The appellate authority noticed the following contention of respondent No.3: “… … … The illegal possession, mention of which has been made, the same belongs to her husband. The resolutions which had been passed on 17.5.1999, 27.5.1999 and 5.6.1999 by Gram Panchayat for allotting the residential plots to the poor people, the name of her husband has already been entered in these resolutions. In addition to this, resolution had been passed on 17.7.1997 for the construction of toilets of the poor people and on the very same plot, his toilet had been constructed with the grant given by Government. No person had raised any objection at the time of his election as Panch. As such he has no illegal possession of any type and nor his possession can be said as illegal. … …” Having noticed the pleadings of respondent No.3, the appellate authority held that since allotment was made to respondent 2 Civil Writ Petition No.13620 of 2010 No.3 in view of the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat on 7th July, 1997, it cannot be said that she was in unauthorized possession of the Shamlat land. Once a person is an allottee of the land, a right vests in him and he or she cannot be termed unauthorized occupant. Yet as a matter of abundant caution, the appellate authority has held that a regular enquiry be held. Therefore, no interference is warranted, at the asking of the complainant, to disturb the well reasoned order passed by the appellate authority below. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE August 3, 2010 rps 3