LPA No. 1137 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 1137 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision 11 . 7 .2011 Udey Singh and another . Appellants Versus . State of Haryana and others .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. RS Mittal , Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.K.Tripathi, Advocate for the appellant 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 23.5.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge upholding the scheme framed on 1.2.2008 by the State of Haryana for allotment of 100 sq. yards residential plots to the families of scheduled caste and those living below poverty line. The scheme was earlier challenged by filing a large number of writ petitions which were dismissed vide common judgement rendered in the case titled as Rajbir Singh v. State of Haryana and others 2010 (1) RCR (Civil) 243. The basic challenge to the scheme was that the State has taken away the proprietary rights of ownership in the land which was kept separate during the consolidation proceedings by imposing pro rata cut although the Gram Panchayat became entitled to manage and control the land under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. The argument was rejected by upholding the policy. The learned LPA No. 1137 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Advocate General made a statement that the scheme would take into consideration only that land which falls into shamlat deh as defined under Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for brevity 'the 1961 Act'). In that case the argument that the Gram Panchayat had no right to allot the plots to the members of the weaker section of the society was also rejected. The learned Single Judge has also quoted in verbatim para 62 of the judgement which have laid down various principles and held that the Gram Panchayat has the power to change the use of the land. The land would be deemed to have vest in the Gram Panchayat and the appellant could not have claimed to be the owner of the land nor could agitate against the uitilisation of the land for the purposes of allotting residential plots to the families of the scheduled caste and those who have been living below the poverty line. 2. Having heard the learned counsel at a considerable length we are of the considered view that the instant appeal is devoid of merit and is thus liable to be dismissed. It is pertinent to notice that the judgement in the case of Rajbir Singh (supra) rendered by the learned Single Judge has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gurmit Singh v. State of Haryana 2010(1) RCR (Civil) 800. The Division Bench has also found that the Gram Panchayat has been shown to be the owner of the land in the revenue record and the Forest Deportment was in possession of the same. Therefore, it had concluded that the land could be used for allotting the plots to the members of scheduled caste/ backward class in terms of provisions of the 1961 Act. When we examine the entries in the revenue record of the present case it is not different. A perusal of jamabandi for the year 2005-06 would show that Gram Panchayat has been shown to be the LPA No. 1137 of 2011 (O&M) 3 owner. Even in the column of cultivator, Panchayat is shown to be in possession (R/1). Accordingly, the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat (R/3) would not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. The appeal is without merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Gurdev Singh) 11.7 .2011 Judge okg