LPA No. 1143 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1143 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: July 18, 2011 Jarnail Singh and others ...Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Mahavir Sandhu, Advocate, for the appellants. 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? GURDEV SINGH, J. CM No. 3318 of 2011 Heard. Application is allowed and Annexure A/1 (khasra girdawari) is ordered to be taken on record. Main Case This appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against an interlocutory order dated 2.6.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 14943 of 2010, vacating the interim order of stay dated 20.8.2010, concerning the utilization of the land in dispute for the allotment of 100 square yard plots to the economically weaker section of the Society. The petitioner-appellants claims themselves to be the proprietors of village Alisher Pur Majra, Hadbast No. 246, Tehsil Bilaspur, LPA No. 1143 of 2011 2 District Yamuna Nagar. The land in dispute has been recorded in the revenue record as 'shamlat malkan har do pattiyat 37 hal wa shamlat patti bhupan wa wastsanai malkan mundarja khewat 14/1/2 hal and 18 Hal' and 'wa shamlat jumla malkan patti kali 22/1/2 hal'. In the column of possession the same is recorded to be in cultivating possession of the present owners. The respondent State of Haryana framed a Policy dated 1.2.2008, deciding to allot residential plots measuring 100 square yards to the families of Scheduled Caste and persons living below the poverty line. The said Policy was circulated amongst all the Deputy Commissioners in the State and for compliance Tehsildar/ Naib-Tehsildar/BDPO and SEPO were directed to carry out a survey and to determine the persons who were eligible for the allotment of those plots. In view of said Policy, respondent No.4 decided to allot 100 square yard plots to the persons belonging to the weaker sections of the society and around 118-120 persons were found eligible. The Gram Panchayat-respondent No.4 then decided to carve out the plots by utilizing the land in dispute. The petitioner-appellants have claimed that being the proprietors of the village they are owner in possession of the land in dispute because the nature of the land is 'shamlat patti' and not 'shamlat deh'. This land was never reserved for being used for any common purposes of the village during the consolidation of the holdings and it never vested in the Gram Panchayat-respondent No.4. Since the time immemorial they and their fore-fathers are in actual physical possession of the land in dispute. The Gram Panchayat-respondent No.4 has taken the decision to utilize this land for carving out the plots at the back of the members of the Gram Sabha. It has been asserted that no land could be taken away from any individual or a group of individuals unless and until the market value thereof is paid to LPA No. 1143 of 2011 3 him/them, as envisaged by Articles 31-A and 300-A of the Constitution. The grievance of the petitioner-appellants, in fact, is that carving out of plots would divest them and the other members of the proprietary body of the village of their ownership over the land in dispute. Neither the Gram Panchayat nor the State has any authority to carve out the plots from this land for allotting the same to the persons belonging to the weaker section of the Society. In the written statement, the respondents have denied that the petitioner-appellants or the proprietors of the village are owner in possession of the land in dispute. It has been asserted that the land in question is covered by the definition of 'shamlat deh' and vests in the Gram Panchayat and, as such, it is fully competent to utilize this land in any manner, as it likes, under the provisions of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as applicable to Haryana (for brevity 'the Act') and the rules framed thereunder. It has also been pointed out that the plots have already been allotted to the families of the weaker section of the Society belonging to Scheduled Caste and those living below the poverty line by passing a resolution dated 1.2.2009. It is claimed that no illegality has been committed by utilizing the land for common purposes for the inhabitants of the village. Mr. Mahavir Sandhu, learned counsel for the petitioner- appellants has vehemently argued that in the revenue record consisting of the jamabandi and khasra girdawari it is the 'shamlat patti', which is recorded to be the owner of the land in dispute and the same is coming in possession of the petitioner-appellants and other proprietors of the village. Therefore, this land does not fall within the definition of 'shamlat deh', as LPA No. 1143 of 2011 4 contained in Section 2 (g) of the Act. According to the learned counsel when the land never vested in the Gram Panchayat-respondent No.4, it is not competent to utilize the same for any purposes what to say for carving out plots to be allotted to the persons belonging to the weaker sections of the Society. We have heard learned counsel at length and perused the paper book with his able assistance. Before succeeding in the present appeal, the petitioner- appellants were required to prove that they have locus standi to file the writ petition. They were required to show that they are the proprietors of the Patti, which, according to them, owns the land in dispute. No such document has been placed on record, on the basis of which it may be concluded that they are the owners of that patti. They have not even able to place on record any document to show that they are the members of the proprietary body of the village. They are not recorded to be in possession of the land in dispute. Thus, prima facie we are of the view that they have no locus standi to challenge the action of the Gram Panchayat-respondent No.4 to carve out the plots from the land in dispute. It cannot be said that the order passed by the learned Single Judge, vacating the order of stay regarding the utilization of the land in dispute, suffers from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference of this Court. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. (M.M. KUMAR) (GURDEV SINGH ) JUDGE JUDGE July 18, 2011 prem LPA No. 1143 of 2011 5