IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 901 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 20, 2011 Umed Singh …Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Nitin Kant Setia, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The appellant-Umed Singh, who is a resident of Village Dangra, Tehsil Tohana, District Fatheabad, is aggrieved by the order dated 4.5.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge. 2. It has come on record that the respondent State of Haryana has floated a scheme for allotment of plots, measuring 100 Square Yards, to needy persons who have been living below poverty line. The main feature of the Scheme, dated 1.2.2008 (P-1), is that 100 Square Yards residential plots are to be given to eligible reserve caste families and poor families of other caste in the villages. The plots are to be carved out from the available shamlat land or by other alternative methods as given in the Scheme (P-1). 3. The case set up by the appellant is that the agricultural land which is away from the abadi area of the village has been given for carving out the plots. According to learned counsel for L.P.A. No. 901 of 2011 (O&M) L.P.A. No. 901 of 2011 (O&M) L.P.A. No. 901 of 2011 (O&M) L.P.A. No. 901 of 2011 (O&M) 2 the appellant it contravenes both the parameters laid down in the scheme, namely, the land should be shamlat deh and no agricultural land could be utilised. Besides this, the land should also be situated near the abadi of the village. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant we are of the considered view that no document has been placed on record to show that there is any bar created against carving out a plot of 100 Square Yard out of the agricultural land. It seems that there is some misconception on the part of the appellant to understand the concept of 'shamlat' because shamlat would not exclude agricultural land as would be evident from the reading of Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961. Even otherwise, the locus standi of the appellant is doubtful, as has been rightly observed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal does not merit admission. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH) May May May May 20, 2011 , 2011 , 2011 , 2011 JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE PKapoor