Civil Writ Petition No. 1320 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: May 23, 2011 Vinod Kumar .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Ms. Reeta Kohli, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Surinder Singh Dalal, Advocate, for respondents No. 7 to 9, 13 to 15. Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate, for respondent No. 16. **** RANJIT SINGH, J (ORAL) The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allot a residential plot measuring 100 sq yards. The petitioner claims to be fully eligible for allotment under the scheme formulated by the respondents State. Prayer further is to issue writ for quashing the allotment of plots made in favour of some ineligible candidates. Civil Writ Petition No. 1320 of 2011 2 During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner gave up the challenge for cancellation of the allotment made in favour of ineligible candidates. Copy of the policy for allotment of 100 sq yard plots has been annexed with the writ petition as Annexure P1. As per the policy, the annual income of poor families of all castes except for Scheduled Castes may not exceed Rs. 45,000/- to make them eligible and the evidence of this income may be self authenticated by the head of family. The other requirement is that the family should not be having any cultivable land exceeding one acre. No member of the family should be income tax payee. None of the family members should be employee of government or board/corporation or Municipal Committee. Similarly, none of the family members should be indulging in any industry, commercial establishment, society etc. None of the family members may have been allocated plot measuring 100 sq yards or more under any scheme by Gram Panchayat. The petitioner was the applicant for allotment of the 100 sq yard plot and his claim has been rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to application for allotting 100 sq yard plots which is annexed as Annexure P14. The examination of the application form by the allotment committee was made which indicates that the petitioner was declared ineligible on account of excessive income. The reference is then made to annexure P15 which is the income certificate issued on 15.04.2010 where it is certified that the annual income of the petitioner is below Rs. 24,000/- per annum from all sources. This is as per the verification by Tehsildar, Hansi vide same communication No. 280/MC dated 15.04.2010. Accordingly, this Civil Writ Petition No. 1320 of 2011 3 certificate was issued. It is on this basis, therefore, pleaded that the Committee has wrongly rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he is ineligible on account of excessive income. Notice of motion was issued. Reply has been filed. Preliminary objection raised is that the writ petition is bad for non- joinder of the necessary parties. Gram Panchayat has not been impleaded as the party in the present petition. The prayer for dismissing the writ petition, accordingly, is made on this sole ground because the plots had been allotted by the Gram Panchayat. It is also stated that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and has concealed the material facts. A draw of lots for allotment of plots was made in the presence of the petitioner and the allottees on 12.06.2009 by a Committee. It is pointed out that the father of the petitioner was present at the time of draw of lots and so was the petitioner present with his father at that time. It is stated that plot No. 282 was allotted to Devi Ram who is the father of the petitioner. The petitioner was also the applicant but his claim was rejected due to the fact that more than one certificate was issued about his income. Initially, the petitioner had filed an affidavit dated 27.03.2008 true translation of which is annexed as R3. In this affidavit, the petitioner had deposed that he is working as a labourer and his total income from all sources was Rs. 10,000/-. He had subsequently filed affidavit Annexure R2 to say that he is working as a labourer and his total income from all sources is less than Rs. 24,000/-. As per the respondents, this contradiction had created some doubt and, accordingly, Panchayat was asked to verify the aspect of income of the petitioner. The allotment committee found Civil Writ Petition No. 1320 of 2011 4 his income in excess to the eligibile criteria for allotment of plots. A report was obtained from the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Ghirai, which showed that the petitioner had six shops within Laldora and had income of more than Rs. 45,000/-. A certificate (Annexure P3) issued by the Gram Panchayat indicates the annual income of the petitioner to be Rs. 50,000/-. Accordingly, the action of the respondent is justified in declaring the petitioner as ineligible on the basis of income criteria. The learned counsel for the petitioner, initially, prayed for granting time to file replication to controvert the facts about his income. Reply in this case was filed on 22.04.2011. The replication, if any, could have been filed. The prayer for adjournment to file replication is therefore declined. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner has orally submitted that the replication is ready with her. The petitioner obviously is raising dispute about his income. He is also disputing that part of report where he is shown to be having shops. Disputed questions of fact can not be appropriately gone into the writ jurisidiction. It would not be appropriate for the Writ Court to go into all these aspects to determine what is the income of the petitioner or if he is having these shops or not. It is not the job of the Writ Court to hold an enquiry to decide the aspect of income of a particular person and then to hold him eligible or otherwise. This matter has to be left to the Committee which was to make allotment or the administrative authorities which have to run the scheme. At the very initial stage, the option was given to the petitioner to make a representation to the Deputy Commissioner but the counsel insisting on arguing the case. Civil Writ Petition No. 1320 of 2011 5 The plea of the respondents that the writ petition is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties can also not be easily ignored. Once the Gram Panchayat is not made a party the aspect of income can not be inquired into in the absence of Gram Panchayat. This would be an added reason to dismiss the petition. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. May 23, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) Amodh JUDGE