IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3647 of 1990 (O&M) Date of decision:31.05.2011 Gram Panchayat, Uparli Dhamauli, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala, through Shri Mangat Ram, Panch, authorized representative. ....Petitioner versus Union of India and others ....Respondents II. COCP No.809 of 2010 in CWP No.3647 of 1990 Gram Panchayat, Uparli Dhamauli, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala, through Shri Ram Singh its authorized representative. ....Petitioner versus Bachna Ram ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: None for the petitioners. Mr. Satbir Singh Goripuria, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Ramesh Goyat, Advocate, for respondents 5 to 9. ---- 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 writ petition seeks for quashing of the proceedings under Annexure P1, dated 07.04.1982 which recorded the property of Civil Writ Petition No.3647 of 1990 (O&M) - 2 - 337 kanals and 8 marlas of land as shamilat deh as having been transferred to the Central Government. The assumption was that the property still continued as shamilat deh. The revenue entry treating the property as having transferred to the Central Government and excluded from the definition of 'shamilat deh' was on the basis of an amendment brought through the definition of Section 2(g)(6) explanation (ii)-A which excludes the property which is allotted to any person by the Rehabilitation Department of the State Government after the commencement of the Act but before 9th July, 1985. In this case, the order was passed in the year 1982. This provision was introduced through Haryana Amendment Act 13 of 1996. This amendment was also upheld by this Court. The petitioner cannot, therefore, obtain the right which he claims through the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. 2. The contempt action sought for violation of interim order for alteration of status quo is also, consequently, dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 31.05.2011 sanjeev