IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-28380 of 2008 Date of Decision: November 11, 2008 Jitender @ Happy … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND Present : Mr. A.S. Trikha, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. DAG, Haryana. **** S.D. Anand, J. The parole plea of the petitioner – prisoner was declined by the Competent Authority on the basis of the report received from District Magistrate/Superintendent of Police concerned to the effect that there is no agricultural holding in the own name of the petitioner – prisoner and that the land stands in the name of his father and is being looked Crl. Misc. No. M-28380 of 2008 after by his father aged 55-56 years and his brother, aged 23-24 years. It was otherwise not disputed that the petitioner is a member of the joint family. It was also an averment that the petitioner is member of a gang which is accountable for commission of a number of crimes. At the motion hearing, there was an averment that the petitioner had been convicted in one case in which he has completed the sentence and that, apart therefrom, the present is the only case in which he stands convicted. Yet another averment was that there were no other cases pending against the petitioner – prisoner which (pendency) could justify the observation made by the Competent Authority that the petitioner – prisoner is member of a gang which has committed a number of crimes. Insofar as the averment on point of the total number of convictions recorded against the petitioner is concerned, the learned State counsel is not in a position to contest it. Insofar as the release of the petitioner – prisoner on agricultural parole is concerned, it could not have been validly declined by the Competent Authority on the recorded premise because every joint owner must make its contribution, in terms of labour in the form of tilling, in the case of joint agricultural holding. It is a 2 Crl. Misc. No. M-28380 of 2008 matter of common observation that the land in village would belong to the father who may either distribute it during the life time or the members of the joint family would get it by devolution of interest after him. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order shall stand quashed. The Competent Authority is directed to take a decision afresh in the light of the observations made by this Court in the foregoing paras of this judgment. The exercise shall be concluded within three weeks from today. It will be for the State counsel to communicate the order to the Competent Authority. Copy of the order be given to the learned State counsel under the signatures of the Court Secretary. November 11, 2008 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 3