IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.69 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:21.1.2010 Shiv Kumar and another -----Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and others -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr.Som Nath Saini, Advocate for the appellants. --- Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition against proposed allotment of plots of the size of 100 square yards to the families of Scheduled Caste or the families of persons living below poverty line. 2. Objection of the appellants-writ petitioners was that allotment of plots should not be made out of common land belonging to proprietors which land is available with the Panchayat only for management under the scheme of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 LPA No.69 of 2010 (O&M) and rules read with the provisions of East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. 3. The writ petition was contested by the State by submitting that the State had only introduced a scheme and it was for the Panchayat to implement the same. A categoric statement was made by the Advocate General that only Shamlat deh land as defined under the 1961 Act will be utilized. Further stand on behalf of the State was that 25% of the total Shamlat deh land will be reserved for future common needs of the inhabitants. 4. In view of above, learned Single Judge held that no ground was made out to interfere as in view of stand of the Advocate General, rights of the proprietors were not affected. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to raise any ground for interference with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in view of stand of the Advocate General that in allotting plots, the rights of proprietors will 2 LPA No.69 of 2010 (O&M) not be affected. His only contention is that the said statement was not being honoured and even common land meant for proprietors was being allotted. If this is so, the remedy of the appellant is to seek implementation of the stand taken before the learned Single Judge at appropriate forum. 7. Subject to this observation, the appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge January 21, 2010 (Alok Singh) ‘gs’ Judge 3