CWP No.18890 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.18890 of 2008 Date of Decision: 15.12.2010 Jai Gopal and another .....Petitioners Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Vikram Punia, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana for respondents no.1 and 2. Mr. Balkar Singh, Advocate for respondent no.3. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 10.9.2008, passed by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, rejecting the petitioners' prayer for purchase of the land in dispute. Counsel for the petitioners submits that CWP No.10487 of 2008 Jai Gopal and another Vs. Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, was disposed of on 8.7.2008, with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Sonepat, to take final decision on the representation dated 27.6.2005 by taking into consideration the notification dated 1.8.2001, whereby the State of Haryana has framed a policy enabling occupants of panchayat property to purchase the land. It is argued that the CWP No.18890 of 2008 2 Deputy Commissioner has rejected the petitioners application, on the ground that the panchayat does not want to take market value of this land and was to construct an Aanganwadi building. It is submitted that as during pendency of the writ petition, Rule 8(3) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules') and the policy framed thereunder has been repealed, the petitioners may be granted liberty to approach the Deputy Commissioner, afresh under Rule 12 (4) of the Rules. Counsel for the Gram Panchayat submits that as a similar request made by the petitioners under Rule 8(3) of the Rules has been rejected, the present petition should be dismissed. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. Admittedly, the petitioners are in possession of land belonging to the Gram Panchayat. Rule 12(3) of the Rules, enabled a person in possession of panchayat property to put forth an offer to purchase the land in his possession. The petitioners filed an application under Rule 8(3) of the Rules, which was rejected. However, as the photographs appended with the writ petition disclose that the petitioners have constructed houses over the land in dispute, in a crowded locality, liberty is granted to the petitioners to file a fresh application under Section 12(4) of the Rules, as in the meanwhile Rule 8(3) of the Rules has been repealed. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. 15.12.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE