IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition 10549 of 2007 Date of decision: 3.11.2009 Sultan Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and ors …Respondents Present: Mr Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr Sudhir Makkar, Sr DAG Haryana. Mr AK Tyagi, Advocate for respondent-3. S.S. SARON, J. This petition has been filed seeking setting aside the order dated 15.6.2007 (P7) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal (respondent-2) and for directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in view of the Policy dated 16.10.2000 (P3) issued by the respondent-Haryana State as well as under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules 1964 (Rules – for short). A further direction is sought for restraining the respondents from demolishing the construction raised by the petitioner. Heard counsel for the parties and with their assistance, gone through the record. In terms of the order dated 15.6.2007 (P7), it was held by the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal that the petitioner was in unauthorized occupation in land comprised in Khasra Nos.90/2 and 91/2 measuring 10 Marlas and 595.11 Sq yds in village Subri. The petitioner had filed CWP 1 CWP 10549 of 2007 4385 of 2007 in this Court, which was disposed of with the direction to decide the representation filed by the petitioner in accordance with the Policy of the State Govt dated 16.10.2000 (P3). The petitioner was heard and he was asked to bring a Resolution duly passed by the Gram Panchayat with regard to its consent to sell the land and to submit the same on 15.6.2007. The petitioner submitted that the Gram Panchayat had not passed any Resolution regarding selling of the land in dispute. It was observed that as per the Policy of the State Govt, it was necessary to pass a Resolution by the Gram Panchayat for selling the Panchayat land in unauthorized possession. Accordingly, it was held that the petitioner was not entitled to purchase the land in his possession in accordance with the Policy of the State Govt. It may be noticed that in terms of the Policy dated 15.6.2007, Rule 8(3) had been added to the Rules. The said Rule has now been omitted by the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Haryana Amendment Rules, 2008, which has been notified vide notification dated 3.1.2008. In terms of the said notification, Rule 12(4) has been added, which was again amended by notification dated 23.1.2009. The newly added Rule envisages that the Gram Panchayat may with the prior approval of the State Govt, sell its non-cultivable land in Shamlat Deh to the inhabitants of the village who have constructed their houses on or before 31.3.2000, not resulting in any obstruction to the traffic and passers-by, along with open space upto 25% of the constructed area or an appurtenant area upto a maximum of 200 sq yds at not less than Collector rate. In terms of the above rule, it is for the Gram Panchayat to seek prior approval of the State Govt to sell its land. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal, at the time of passing of the order dated 15.6.2007 2 CWP 10549 of 2007 (P7) was agreeable to transfer the land, however, for want of Resolution by the Gram Panchayat, the order could not be passed as in terms of the Policy dated 16.10.2000 (P3) a reference was made to Rule 8(3) of the Rules, in terms of which it was mandatory to have a Resolution of the Gram Panchayat. The same, however, is now not necessary in terms of Rule 12 (4) and it is to be seen that the inhabitants of the village who had constructed their houses on or before 31.3.2000 which do not result in any obstruction to the traffic and passers-by along with open space upto 25% of the constructed area or an appurtenant area upto a maximum of 200 sq yds may purchase the land in their occupation at not less than the Collector rate. In terms of Rule 12(4) as it now stands, it is quite evident that it is for the Gram Panchayat which may, with the prior approval of the State Government, sell its non-cultivable land in Shamlat Deh. Therefore, it is for the Gram Panchayat to apply for approval and the question of sale cannot be considered on an application made to the Deputy Commissioner because Rule 12(4) provides that the Gram Panchayat is to seek prior approval of the State Government. The Gram Panchayat has already objected to the transfer of the land in terms of its decision. Besides, the learned counsel for the Gram Panchayat has referred to the demarcation proceedings conducted on 31.5.2005 by Sh Som Nath, retired Sadar Kanungo, who was Local Commissioner appointed by the Tehsildar, Karnal. In terms of the report (R3/1), it has been observed that the petitioner was raising construction even at the time of the visit of the local commissioner. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the construction of the house is admittedly after 31.3.2000 and the land can only be sold by the Gram Panchayat with the prior approval of the State 3 CWP 10549 of 2007 Government if it had been constructed before 31.3.2000. However, learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the facts and states that the construction which is there on the land in question is quite old and before 31.3.2000. This Court, in exercise of its supervisory writ jurisdiction, is not to embark upon an inquiry as regards the disputed questions of facts. This is the domain of the statutory authorities to decide on the basis of material on record. Besides, it is for the Gram Panchayat to sell or not to sell its land. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the case of the petitioner has been decided on the basis of a policy which is now not in force and a new policy is applicable, it would be just and expedient if the petitioner approaches the Gram Panchayat (respondent- 3) for sale of the land to him in accordance with the provisions of Rule 12 (4) of the Rules (as now applicable). In case the petitioner files a representation before the Gram Panchayat (respondent-3) within one month from the receipt of a copy of the order, the same shall be considered by the Gram Panchayat in accordance with law and the provisions of Rule 12(4) of the Rules and in case permission is granted, it shall seek prior approval of the State Government. Till such time the representation is considered by the Gram Panchayat, the house in question shall not be demolished. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 3.11.2009. ( S.S.SARON ) ASR JUDGE 4