IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition 13244 of 2009 Date of decision: 27.8.2009 Kalga Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and ors …Respondents Present: Mr RK Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner. S.S. SARON, J. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking directions to respondents to finalize the allotment applications (P2 and P4) of the petitioner in the light of the instructions dated 26.9.2007 (P1) issued by the Govt of Punjab. The petitioner’s claim is that he is in unaurhorised occupation of land measuring 102 Kanals 11 Marlas, as detailed in para 2 of the petition. Strong reliance is placed on the report of the Patwari dated 5.3.2008 (P3), in terms of which the petitioner is in cultivation of the land measuring 96 Kanals. Therefore, it is submitted that respondent-2 is liable to consider and dispose of the applications (P2 and P4) filed by the petitioner. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that condition No.2 of the instructions dated 26.9.2007 enjoins that for submitting an application for conversion of land, the undisputed cultivating possession of the eligible person should be established as per 1 CWP 13244 of 2009 crop of Kharif 2000 and necessary entry should be there in the annual record. Besides, doubtful entry of Khasra Girdawari should be ignored. The petitioner has placed nothing on record to show that he is in undisputed established possession over the land since Kharif 2000 and the annual record is also in his favour. Besides, a perusal of the report dated 5.3.2008 (P3) would show that the petitioner himself had certified at the spot that he is in possession of the land for the last about 8 to 10 years and had cultivated the said land. In the circumstances, no ground is made out for issuance of directions to respondent-2 to consider and decide the representations (P2 and P4). The petitioner, in the circumstances, may pursue his representations by submitting necessary documents and material on record with the State Govt. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner may, however, pursue his remedy with respondent-2 in accordance with law. 27.8.2009. ( S.S.SARON ) ASR JUDGE 2