IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18426 of 1998 Date of Decision: January 17, 2011 The Ambala Cantt. Supply Depot., Karamchari Co-operative House Building Society Limited, Supply Depot Association, Ambala Cantt. .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. None for respondent No.3. Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.4. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. When the matter was heard on 26.8.2010, the following order was passed:- “The land in dispute was admittedly allotted to the petitioner, a Co-operative Society of Class-IV employees, on 04.07.1984, after they deposited the proposed price, with the Rehabilitation Department. The land originally belong to muslim migrants. A dispute whether such land belongs to the Rehabilitation Depart- ment or to the Gram Panchayat was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamal- pur Gram Panchayat v. Malwinder Singh, AIR 1985 SC 1394, by holding that such CWP No.18426 of 1998 [2] land belongs to a Gram Panchayat. As the Rehabilitation Department and the Govern- ment had transferred large tracts of such land, to satisfy, verified claims etc., the State of Haryana amended Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 (as applicable to the State of Haryana) by adding proviso (ii-a), which reads as follows:- “2 (g) “Shamilat Deh” includes- (ii-a) was shamilat deh, but has been allotted to any person by the Rehabilitation Department of the State Govern- ment, after the commencement of this Act, but on or before the 9th day of July, 1985.” A corresponding amendment was made in Section 3 by incor- porating Section 3(2)(ii) in the Act, which reads as follows:- “3(2)(ii) Where any land has vested in a panchayat under this Act, but such land has been excluded from shamilat deh under sub-clause (ii-a) of clause (g) of Section 2, all rights, title and interest of the panchayat in such land, from the date of al- lotment of such land by the Rehabilitation De- partment of the State Government, shall cease and all such rights, title and interest shall vest in the person or persons to whom the land so ex- cluded has been allotted by the Rehabilitation Department of the State Government on or be- fore the 9th day of July, 1985 subject to the con- dition that- (a) any sum of money realised by the Rehabilitation Depart- ment of the State Government as a result of al- lotment of such land; or (b) where no money was realisable by the Rehabilitation De- partment of the State Government as a result of allotment of such land, the amount of compensa- tion in respect of such land as determined under sub-section (3) by the Collector of the district in which such a land is situated, shall be paid by the Rehabilitation Department of the State Government to the Development and Panchayats Department for onward disbursement to the panchayat to which such shamilat deh belonged.” The petitioner's claim, is not opposed by the Gram Panchayat. The Director, Panchayats, Haryana, has rejected the petitioner's case on the ground that no sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner before 09.07.1985. CWP No.18426 of 1998 [3] A prima facie appraisal of the statutory provisions referred to above, appear to suggest that the cut off date applies to an “allotment” not to the exe- cution of a sale deed. A sale deed is a consequential act that follows the allotment. The petitioner was admittedly allotted the land before 09.07.1985. Counsel for the parties pray for time to address further argu- ments. Adjourned to 07.09.2010.” 2. Learned counsel for the respondent- State contends that the Government would address the issue and consider the case of the petitioner for allotment of land in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in conformity of the legal provisions. 3. The petition is disposed of. 4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for finalisation of transfer of land within a period of five months of receipt of a copy of this order. (AJAI LAMBA) January 17, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?