C.W.P. No.5089 of 1991 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.5089 of 1991 Date of Decision.15.11.2011 Ghamsham Dass son of Tirath Dass resident of L-379, Model Town, Karnal .....Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana through Secretary to Govt. Haryana, Department of Local Government, Haryana, Chandigarh and another .....Respondents Present: Mr. C.B. Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Kirti Singh, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate for Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition had been originally directed by the Admission Court to be taken up after the disposal of the case in C.W.P. No.11006 of 1990. The said case has been disposed of on 30.03.2011 dismissing the petitioners' claim for non-prosecution. The case would, therefore, required to be taken up on merits since the disposal in the aforesaid writ petition has been otherwise than on merits. 2. The petitioner's contention was that he was owner of 2 bighas 2 biswas of land and as a displaced person, he was entitled to preference in the manner of allotment under the Karnal Improvement Trust Land Disposal Rules, 1976. The petitioner made the claim as per C.W.P. No.5089 of 1991 -2- Rule 9 that sets out the priorities and included a local displaced person under any scheme also to be given a plot, if he had not been given already by the Trust. In response to the petitioner's plea, it is contended by the respondents that the property had been acquired and an award was passed in the year 1976 and there had been no representation at all by the petitioner at any point of time. Scheme No.26 under which the petitioner was making a claim had been implemented over the previous 12 years before the petitioners' claim and there is no property available for allotment. It was contended, therefore, that the petitioner's claim was barred by laches. 3. Under the circumsatances, I will not find any scope for a favourable intervention on behalf of the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 15, 2011 Pankaj*