IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18196 of 2008 Date of Decision: March 15, 2011 Zile Singh & another .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Sukhvinder Singh Nara, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. None for respondent No.3. Mr. Gobind Dhanda, Advocate, for respondent Nos.4 to 11. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Resolution No.6 dated 19.1.2004 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.3 i.e. Gram Panchayat, Village Raja Kheri, Tehsil & District Panipat and Order dated CWP No.18196 of 2008 [2] 19.10.2006 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.1 i.e. Director Panchayats, Haryana. 2. It has been pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that a community centre has already been constructed in village Raja Kheri, Tehsil & District Panipat. One Harijan Chaupal is already in existence. Vide Resolution at issue (Annexure P-2), another Harijan Chaupal is proposed to be constructed in the area measuring 132 feet X 60 feet. There is no necessity of Harijan Chaupal and therefore, the Resolution be cancelled. 3. It has been pleaded that an application was made to the Director Panchayats, Haryana, under Section 47 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 for cancellation of Resolution which has been dismissed vide Order dated 19.10.2006 (Annexure P-3) on the ground that the petitioners may approach the authorities under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and Rules. 4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 11 contends that one Harijan Chaupal was in 60 yards only which is wholly insufficient. The Gram Panchayat has considered the requirement of constructing another Chaupal. The land to be utilised for the second Harijan Chaupal was CWP No.18196 of 2008 [3] infact a ground where dirty water collected causing pollution. By way of conversion of land for Harijan Chaupal, there is no accumulation of dirty water in the area and rather service has been rendered to the village and village community by construction of Chaupal. 5. It has been brought out that perusal of photographs, Annexure R-4/2 (collectively) indicates that the land utilised for Chaupal was not a pond at all. 6. I have considered the rival contentions. 7. As per Resolution Annexure P-2, the land belonging to Gram Panchayat sandwiched between Phirni and Babail Road, and adjoining to Dalit Basti measuring 132 feet long and 60 feet wide, has been given for construction of Harijan Chaupal. Copy of the Resolution was entered in the proceedings book. 8. Gram Panchayat is the authority that is required to primarily take decision in regard to utilisation of land for purposes assessed as most suitable. One such decision was taken vide Resolution Annexure P-2. Documents available on record including written statement of Block Development & Panchayat Officer indicate that there was no johar/ pond in existence at the CWP No.18196 of 2008 [4] site and there was only accumulation of dirty water at the site where Harijan Chaupal is scheduled to be constructed. Due to change in land, right of not a single person has been adversely effected, rather accumulation of dirty water has been removed by the Gram Panchayat. 9. I have also taken note of the fact that a writ petition was filed on the same cause of action viz. Civil Writ Petition No.14844 of 2007 which was dismissed as withdrawn on the statement of the petitioner in person. This petition has been filed on identical grounds on the same cause of action. 10. The peculiar facts and circumstances of the case indicate that so as to remove the dirty water from the area, the land has been converted into Chaupal for Harijan community. Equity itself demands that Writ Court does not interfere in such issues of Gram Panchayat as no arbitrary or unreasonable action is disclosed from the Resolution or subsequent order passed by Director Panchayats. 12. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that Community Centre has already been constructed and therefore, separate Chaupal for Harijans is not required, is a matter to be considered by the CWP No.18196 of 2008 [5] Gram Panchayat. The Writ Court cannot adjudicate and say that Chaupal is not required. The issue has been brought to the notice of the authorities, however the resolution has not been cancelled. 11. In peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, Writ Court which is a Court of equity would not interfere in a case that appears to have been filed, a second time, on account of party faction in the village. The technicalities of requirement under the statutory provisions, therefore, are not being considered. 12. No ground for interference is made out. 13. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) March 15, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?