IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.12198 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : MARCH 10, 2011 INDER KUMAR ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT:Mr. AKS Goyat, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Saini, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Babbar Bhan, Advocate, for respondents 5 &7. Mr. VS Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.6. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This order shall dispose of two petitions viz. CWP 12198 of 2009 (Inder Kumar v. State of Haryana and others) and CWP 17290 of 2008 (Pawan Kumar v. The Director, Consolidation, Haryana and others), as common questions of law and facts are involved. 2 For reference to facts, record of CWP 12198 of 2009, is being taken up. 3 Challenge in this petition is to order dated 13.9.2008 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Director, Civil Writ Petition No.12198 of 2009 2 Consolidation, Haryana, vide which the land shown in the name of Gram Panchayat, Village Nangal Chaudhary, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahindergarh, comprised in khasra No.107/1/1/7, measuring 11 marlas, has been given to respondent No.6-Gopal son of Amar Singh, for making up deficiency in his area. The order has been passed on the basis of a concession given by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. It is the admitted case that there is no resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, which would allow transfer of land in favour of a private person. 4 On a perusal of the impugned order, I also find that there is no reference to the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, or the Rules framed thereunder in the year 1964, which need compliance before taking away any land, which vests in the Gram Panchayat. 5 Since the issues need to be addressed, including the issue whether the land at issue was left out during consolidation for common purposes and as to whether the land was ever used for common purposes, learned counsel for the parties agree that the order (Annexure P-1) be quashed and the matter be remanded to the Director, Consolidation, Haryana, to readdress the issue, after taking into account various aspects, referred to above, and Civil Writ Petition No.12198 of 2009 3 other ancillary issues. 6 The petition is, accordingly, allowed. Impugned order (Annexure P-1) is hereby quashed. The case is remanded back to the Director, Consolidation, Haryana, to readdress the issue, after taking into account various aspects, referred to above, and other ancillary issues. 7 In the meantime, status quo/possession shall be maintained. 8 It is, however, made clear that respondent No.6 shall not create any charge over the property, sell the property or, in any manner, change the nature of the property by way of raising construction over the property, or otherwise. March 10, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?