CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2969 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2969 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 28, 2011 Suresh Kumar & others .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. B.K. Bagri, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana for the State. Mr. SP Chahar, Advocate, for respondent No.3. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This writ petition will dispose of writ petition Nos.2969, 23418 of 2010 and 5153 of 2011. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2969 of 2010 The petitioners are residents of the village Pipali, Teh. Kharkhoda, Distt. Sonepat, claimed themselves to be belonging to a labour class and those, who are below poverty line. They have made a claim for allotment of residential plots of 100 sq. yards in CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2969 of 2010 -2- terms of the policy formulated by the State on 1.2.2008. The petitioners would claim that they are fully eligible and competent to apply for the plots under the policy and had made their applications on the prescribed proforma along with the ration card etc. The Gram Panchayat selected the land for allotment of 100 sq. yards plots and a Committee was constituted including Sarpanch, Gram Sachiv, Patwari, Namberdar and Headmaster of the Village to consider the claim of all eligible persons. It is stated that Committee had recommended the names according to their choice and ignored the claims of persons like petitioners, who deserve the same better than those, who have been allotted plots. The petitioners filed representations against the allotment. When nothing was being done, they have filed the present writ petition. In the reply filed, it is disclosed that petitioner Nos.2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 13, 15 & 16 did not apply for allotment of plots. If that being the position, their claim certainly could not have been considered. Name of petitioner No.16 was not found in the survey list of 2007. Petitioner Nos.1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17 & 18 were found to be in illegal encroachment on the Gram Panchayat land and action is being taken to evict them. They, accordingly, were not held eligible for consideration of 100 sq. yards plots. Petitioner Nos.2, 5, 9, 13 & 15 did not apply for allotment of the plots within time i.e. till 31.3.2008. Counsel for the petitioners points out that some of the persons, who have been allotted the plots, have also been encroached the Panchayat land, whereas the respondents still have CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2969 of 2010 -3- made the allotment in their favour. Counsel also submits that Committee failed to accept the applications of some of the petitioners and that is why their applications could not be filed in time. From the stand as projected, it is virtually conceded that the petitioners were not the applicants. In any case, these facts are disputed and accordingly, it would not be appropriate for the writ Court to go into these disputed questions of facts. The cases of all the persons have apparently been considered in a fair and reasonable manner. As is stated before me that the allotment of plots had been done on the basis of draw of lots, which has been held in the presence of SDM. This procedure certainly is fair and proper. That being the position, in my view, no case is made out for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 23418 of 2010 The petitioners in this case also have made applications for allotment of 100 sq. yards plots in view of the policy as noted above. Here, also the grievance is that the claim of the petitioners is not considered appropriately and so the petitioners are before this Court. In reply filed, it is disclosed that Gram Panchayat had held a draw of lots for the residential plots vide its Resolution No.1, dated 27.11.2008 in the presence of Sarpanch, Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Guragon, and Block Development Panchayat Officer, Gurgaon, for 48 persons. Name of one person was withdrawn. All these persons were found eligible by the Committee as per the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2969 of 2010 -4- survey carried out by the Government. Reference is made to two civil suits filed titled as “Jagdish and others Versus Gram Panchayat Nawada, Fatehpur” and “Narayan Singh Versus Gram Panchayat Nawada Fatehpur”, which were got dismissed in default on 16.7.2010 and 20.1.2011 respectively. These allotments were under challenge. Accordingly, the plea of estoppel is raised. Reference is also made to Civil Writ Petition No.9180 of 2009 titled as “Rajbir Singh Versus State of Haryana” decided on 16.11.2009, whereby 150 writ petitions were clubbed together and disposed of. The objection also is raised that the persons, who have been selected for allotment, have not been impleaded as party-respondents and thus, the writ petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Here also fair procedure was adopted by holding a draw of lots in the presence of independent persons like SDM and thus, no allegation of any type can be made. Thus, no case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction, is made out, especially so when the same issue was agitated in the civil suits, which were got dismissed The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5113 of 2011 In this case also the reply would disclose that some of the petitioners did not make application on or before last date of submission i.e. 31.3.2008. Names of petitioner Nos.2, 4, 7 & 8 were not found in the survey list of 2007. Some of the petitioners were found to be in illegal encroachment on the land of Veterinary Hospital. No case for interference in this case, thus, is made out. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2969 of 2010 -5- Thus, I do not find any infirmity in allotment, which would call for interference in the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. April 28, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE