C.W.P. No.1601 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.1601 of 2010 Date of Decision.30.09.2011 Naresh Kumar son of Sh. Gadhu Ram and others .....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. G.S. Gandhi, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Kirti Singh, DAG, Haryana for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Rupam Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.4. None for respondent Nos.5 to 26. 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 petitioner challenges the allotment, which has been made by the 3rd respondent for 100 sq. yards residential plots in the village. This has been under a scheme floated by the Government setting out several parameters for consideration of the claims of villagers. The scheme provides for a detailed procedure for scrutiny of the applications of persons by a committee comprising of Deputy Commissioner, Sarpanch, Patwari, Gram Sachiv, Principal/Headmaster and Namberdar belonging to Scheduled Caste and Backward Class. The Committee prepares the final list of the eligible families and the same is required to be forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner and on preparation of a list C.W.P. No.1601 of 2010 -2- by the Deputy Commissioner, it is forwarded to the Government and the action is ultimate order of allotment as made after an elaborate exercise. The Scheme further provides that the work for identifying the eligible families will be supervised by the Tehsildar taking a random sampling of 10% of the applications and make further checking of 5% families by random sampling by the DDPO/D.R.O. along with SDM or other IAS/HCS officers. The 2% of the families are checked at random by the DC himself and 1% by the Commissioner himself. There is a time frame framed when the scheme is required to be completed. 2. The petitioners' contention is that their status as persons falling Below Poverty Line (BPL) is an admitted fact and they have been deprived of the benefit. The petitioners would give out a long narration of allegations against respondent Nos.5 and 6 to say that each one of them is ineligible. The Government had filed written statement through the 4th respondent, who is the Sarpanch of the village and the learned counsel wants to contend that the Sarpanch has prepared the list and same has been accepted. The case such as this, which challenges an allotment cannot be decided on wild allegations made by the petitioners without any form of proof of any of the allegations. Learned counsel states that if the allegations are made and if the private respondents are not prepared to contest the same, that itself would be taken as proof of the admission of the petitioners' assertion. I cannot accept this argument. If State action is challenged as one, which has been done without following the requisite procedure unless some materials are brought, I cannot accept the plea and make a roving enquiry before this Court. Issues on fact have to be brought before the authorities and if C.W.P. No.1601 of 2010 -3- there was no tangible material, which should be produced by the petitioners, it could not merit consideration. I cannot allow for wild allegations to gain primacy in this Court in its exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. The writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 30, 2011 Pankaj*