C.W.P. No. 2940 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 2940 of 2008 Date of Decision:- 15.12.2011 Buta Ram and others .....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present:- Mr. M.S. Kang, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Manohar Lall, Addl. AG Punjab. Mr. Tribhuvan Singla, Advocate for respondents No. 3 to 6. **** SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J(Oral). The three petitioners have filed the instant petition for quashing of the order dated 1.2.2008 (Annexure P-8), which is a communication by Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Nakodar to Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, Village Tut Kallan, where it was required that the bricks placed by certain persons on the land of the Gram Panchayat be got removed. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners were allotted 100 square yard plots by the Gram Panchayat under the policy of the Government vide resolution Annexure P-3 which was duly recommended by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Nakodar. However, after allotting the plots the Block Development and Panchayat Officer illegally issued the aforesaid order directing the Sarpanch to remove the foundation C.W.P. No. 2940 of 2008 2 laid down by the petitioners on the plots allotted to them. In the written statement, the respondents have taken the stand that the plots were not allotted to the petitioners. Though Gram Panchayat made recommendation for allotment of plots to certain persons by the aforesaid resolution in which the name of petitioner No. 3 was not there. The said recommendation was inquired into by the Committee with regard to the eligibility of all the persons mentioned in the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat. The said committee found certain person ineligible for allotment of plots under the policy. As far as the petitioner No. 1 is concerned it has been found that he was having a house in the village which he has sold after passing of the resolution. Other petitioners No. 2 and 3 were also not found eligible for allotment of plots. During the course of arguments counsel for the petitioner has not controverted the above averment made in the written statement filed by the respondents. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the written statement as well as the proceedings of the Committee, which has been annexed as Annexure R1, headed by SDM, we do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE 15.12.2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) reema JUDGE