IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 690 of 2010 Date of decision: 12.01.2011 Dharampal ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. J.S. Dahiya, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shruti Jain, A.A.G., Haryana, for the State. Mr. Chanakya Pandit, Advocate for respondent No. 7. RANJIT SINGH J. The Government of India has framed a policy for allotment of residential plots of 100 square yards to the person belonging to the Scheduled Castes and to the families who are living below poverty line. The instructions, in this regard, have already been issued by the Government, which are annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2. The Village Level Committee was constituted which had given a list of 129 eligible candidates. It is alleged that respondent No. 7 i.e. Sh. Devendar son of Sh. Sukhbir Singh, Member Panchayat was appointed as acting Sarpanch, who in collusion with respondents No. 5 and 6 altered the list supplied to the Committee and only gave names of the persons of their choice on the basis of pick and choose. It is also alleged that more than 2-3 plots were allotted to the members of single family and some eligible persons were deprived of their legal right to take Civil Writ Petition No. 690 of 2010 -2- advantage of the policy formulated by the Government. Aggrieved against this, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. In response, the State would point out that the petitioner is not eligible for allotment of plot as he is not below poverty line and is a holder of plot. This fact is not disputed by the counsel for the petitioner. He, however, has a grievance that policy of pick and choose has been adopted and the plots were allotted to ineligible persons. These facts are disputed and appropriately cannot be gone into while exercising the writ jurisdiction. However, if some ineligible persons have been allotted the plots this also cannot be allowed to escape the scrutiny. Accordingly, I deem it appropriate to direct the Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat to held inquiry in this case and examine if the plots have been allotted to the persons who are not eligible and whether any policy of pick and choose was adopted. Deputy Commissioner would be at liberty to take action, in accordance with law, if he finds that the policy has been violated and the plots have been allotted to some ineligible persons. Of course, he will be at liberty to afford an opportunity of hearing to all such persons in case some policy is violated. The present petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Copy of this order be sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat by the Registry of this Court. January 12, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE