IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18961 of 2009 Date of Decision: March 21, 2011 Rajesh Kumar .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sukhvinder Singh Nara, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Munish Mittal, Advocate, for respondent No.4. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 19.6.2008 (Annexure P-10) whereby application/ representation of the petitioner for purchase of land in his possession, has been declined. 2. It has been pleaded that Gram CWP No.18961 of 2009 [2] Panchayat has allowed purchase of land to other persons who were in possession of Gram Panchayat property and therefore, similar relief be given to the petitioner also. It has also been pleaded that as per the policy of the respondent-State, the petitioner is entitled to pay the price of land that is in his possession. 3. I have considered the contention of learned counsel in context of the reasons given in impugned order (Annexure P-10) declining the request of the petitioner for purchase of land. 4. It is not in dispute that proceedings were carried against the petitioner under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as applicable to Haryana. The petitioner has been found to be in unauthorised possession of land and has been ordered to be ejected whereafter the petitioner made an application for purchase of land. 5. Vide the impugned order (Annexure P-10), the application has been dismissed on the ground that petitioner is in possession of 585 square yards. Construction exists only in 49.77 square yards. The land itself is next to the primary school. The school has insufficient land. Even the Gram Panchayat has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for sale of land in his favour. CWP No.18961 of 2009 [3] 6. The land that is in possession of the petitioner is meant for common purposes. Continuance of possession of such land would be harmful to the rights of the Gram Sabha. It has been pointed out that possession over the land has already been handed over to the Gram Panchayat. 7. In view of the fact that petitioner has been found to be in illegal and unauthorised possession of the Gram Panchayat land and the fact that Gram Panchayat has passed a resolution indicating that it does not want to sell the land, no ground for interference in extraordinary writ jurisdiction is made out. 8. The petition is accordingly dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) March 21, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?