Civil Writ Petition No.14804 of 2010 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARAYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14804 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: January 17, 2011 Anand Sharma ….Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Ranjit Saini, with Mr. Amit Prashar, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mr. Sukhwinder Singh Nara, Sr. DAG, Haryana for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Sunjeet Singh Bhadana, Advocate for respondent No.3. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) Civil Misc. No.621 of 2011 Application is allowed. Replication is taken on record. CWP No.14804 of 2010 1. This petition has been filed under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 20.05.2010 (Annexure P-7). Further prayer has been made in the writ petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allot the land in terms of Rule 6A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation), Haryana Amendment Rules, 2008 and change revenue entries accordingly. 2. The petitioner claims himself to be in possession of land defined in Para 3 of the writ petition since 1963, having taken possession - 1- Civil Writ Petition No.14804 of 2010 (O&M) of the land under Resolution dated 1.9.1963 (Annexure P-1). Reference needs to be made to the contents of Annexure P-1 to adjudicate the issue. Annexure P-1 is copy of Resolution passed by Gram Panchayat, Badoli, Block Faridabad, District Gurgaon, showing that the land has been given to the petitioner under Section 8(3) of the Common Land Act so as to avoid illegal and unauthorized possession of land with the stipulation that petitioner would not be charged rent for a period of 10 years and thereafter, would be liable to pay Rs.100/- per year. 3. It appears that after filing of application dated 29.12.2008 (Annexure P-5) by the petitioner for allotment of land to him, no decision was taken by the respondent authorities. The petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No.16927 of 2009 which was disposed of vide order dated 16.12.2009 (Annexure P-6). The respondents were directed to take decision on the application of the petitioner within four months of receipt of certified copy of the order. Consequently, order dated 20.5.2010 (Annexure P-7) has been passed, operative part whereof reads as under:- “3. As per your applications dated 25.01.2010 and 01.02.2010, the land in question measuring 33 kanal 1 marla falling in Khasra No.24/7, 8, 13, 14 and 15 was leased out by the Gram Panchayat vide agreement dated 17.09.1963, whereas as per the resolution No.1 dated 14.04.2010 passed by the Gram Panchayat, Mirajpur it reveals that the land in question was being leases out in open auction to different person since 1998-99 and you are not in cultivating possession of this land. The jamabandies for the years 1965-66 to 2005-06 also reveals that the land in question has never remained in your possession of the petitioner. It has also been reported by the Dy. Commissioner, Faridabad that the petitioner had not paid any yearly rent as agreed upon in the alleged agreement rather deposited a lump sum amount of ` 3600/- on account of lease money for period of 36 years of 36 years on 19.09.2009 in the saving account of the Gram Panchayat. Neither the agreement nor any other revenue record proves - 2- Civil Writ Petition No.14804 of 2010 (O&M) that the land in question has ever remained in your cultivating possessions. 4. Your claim was considered in tem of the provisions of Rule 6A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, which reads as under: - “6A Lease of land in shamilat deh to lessees of East Punjab Utilization of Lands Act, 1949- Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the Gram Panchayat may, with prior approval of the State Government lease out its land for cultivation purposes for a period up to 99 years to the original leases of East Punjab Utilization of Lands Act, 1949, or to their legal heirs, who are in cultivating possession of such land.” From the perusal of the documentary evidence produced by your before the Dy. Commissioner and other documents available on record, it reveals that neither the land in question was leased out under the provisions of East Punjab Utilization of Lands Act, 1949, to you at any point of time nor you are in cultivating possession of the land in question. Hence, none of the ingredients is satisfied to consider your claim under Rule 6A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964.” 5. Accordingly, your applications representations made to the Dy. Commissioner, Faridabad pursuant to the order dated 16.12.2009 passed by the Hon’ble High in CWP No.16927 of 2009 are rejected.” 4. The petitioner has challenged the above extracted order. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in terms of policy of the respondents, the land that had been given to the petitioner under East Punjab Utilization of Lands Act, 1949 (for short, ‘the Act of 1949’) ought to have been allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner has been in cultivation of the land and has made substantial improvements on the land at the substantial expense of the petitioner. 5. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel. - 3- Civil Writ Petition No.14804 of 2010 (O&M) 6. Under Rule 6A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Rules, 1964 (for short, ‘the Rules’), as reproduced in above extracted order, the Gram Panchayat may with prior approval of the State Government, lease out its land for cultivation purposes for a period upto 99 years to the original lessees under the Act of 1949. 7. As per the findings recorded in the impugned order, the petitioner was not in cultivating possession of the land, rather the lease rights had been auctioned to various persons since the year 1998-99. In the absence of possession of the petitioner, the petitioner could not claim allotment of land under Rule 6A of the Rules. 8. The official respondents have further found that the petitioner did not pay any yearly rent in terms of Annexure P-1. Also, the land had not been given to the petitioner under the Act of 1949, rather it had been given under Common Land Act. 9. No document has been placed on record to show substantial right of the petitioner for allotment of land under the Act of 1949 and therefore, in this extraordinary writ jurisdiction, I find no ground to quash the impugned order. Findings on facts have been recorded for reasons assigned in the order on the basis of relevant material which call for no interference. 10. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. 17.01.2011 (AJAI LAMBA) vcgarg/ avin JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? - 4- Civil Writ Petition No.14804 of 2010 (O&M) - 5-