IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 1172 of 2010 ( O&M ) DATE OF DECISION : 29.04.2011 Krishan Lal .... APPELLANT Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL Present: Mr. Jitender S. Chahal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. D. Khanna, Addl. A.G., Haryana, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Panwar, Advocate, for respondent No.4. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the order dated 16.11.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby a bunch of writ petitions, including the writ petition (CWP No. 11197 of 2009) filed by the appellant, challenging the policy of the State Government dated 1.2.2008 (Annexure P-2) for allotting 100 square yards plots to the families of the Scheduled Castes and to the families living below poverty line, as well as the resolution dated 13.3.2008 (Annexure P-3), passed by Gram Panchayat of village Shahjadwala, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna LPA No. 1172 of 2010 -2- Nagar (respondent No.4) to carve out 100 square yards residential plots, in terms of the said policy, from the land mentioned in the resolution, which belongs to the Gram Panchayat, has been dismissed. It is the case of the appellant that the aforesaid policy of the State Government is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). In terms of the said illegal policy, the Gram Panchayat, without taking into consideration the view point of the members of the Gram Sabha, passed the resolution to carve out 100 square yards plots from the land comprised in khasra No. 158/5 (23-19) of village Sohna and land comprised in khasras No. 28//7, 6, 14, 15, 110, 113 of village Shahjadwala. It is further the case of the appellant that he had purchased some land for consideration from one Heera, whose wife Smt. Tugli Devi had executed a writing in this regard on 8.9.1982, in the presence of the then Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. Since then, the appellant is in possession of the said land, which is existing in the Abadi Deh. On the said land, the appellant has raised construction. Possession of the appellant on the said land is also depicted in the jamabandi for the year 2004-05 (Annexure P-1). Though no averment has been made by the appellant either in his writ petition or in the instant appeal, that from which khasra number of the Abadi, he had purchased the said land, but by annexing the copy of jamabandi for the year 2004-05 (Annexure P-1), he wanted to assert that he has purchased the land measuring 1 kanal 6 marlas from khasra No. 110, which according to the LPA No. 1172 of 2010 -3- said jamabandi is situated within the Abadi Deh. It is the case of the appellant that the said land does not fall within the definition of `shamilat deh', as defined under Section 2 (g) (i) of the Act and the same does not vest in the Gram Panchayat, therefore, the Gram Panchayat was not competent to include the said land in its resolution for the purpose of carving out 100 square yards plots for allotment to the families of the Scheduled Castes and the families living below poverty line, in terms of the State policy. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition of the appellant along with a bunch of writ petitions, wherein the validity of the State Policy dated 1.2.2008 (Annexure P-2) was challenged, while holding that the State Government was fully competent to frame such policy and the land vested in Gram Panchayat can be used for any one or more purposes specified in the Rules and not necessarily the purpose for which the same was reserved in consolidation scheme. The said decision of the learned Single Judge has also been upheld by the Division Bench, vide order dated 8.1.2010, while dismissing LPA No.1322 of 2009. In view of the above position, learned counsel for the appellant could not argue on the validity of the policy, framed by the State Government. However, he argued that khasra No.110, which is recorded to be in possession of the appellant, where his house is existing, could not be utilised for the purpose of carving out plots under the aforesaid policy. We have examined the aforesaid contention, raised by learned counsel for the appellant. Firstly, a bare perusal of the resolution dated LPA No. 1172 of 2010 -4- 13.3.2008 (Annexure P-3) reveals that the Gram Panchayat has proposed to utilise the land comprised in khasra No. 158/5 (23-19) of village Sohna and land comprised in khasras No. 28//7, 6, 14, 15, 110, 113 of village Shahjadwala. A perusal of the vernacular of jamabandi for the year 2004-05, which has been annexed as Annexure A-1, reveals that out of 1 kanal 6 marlas of land, comprised in khasra No. 110, the land measuring 8 marlas is vacant and the remaining 18 marlas of land has been shown as Gair Marusi Abadi. As per Section 2 (g) (4a) of the Act, the vacant land situate in Abadi Deh not owned by any person, falls under the definition of `shamilat deh' and the same vests in the Gram Panchayat. In view of this fact, it cannot be said that the entire khasra number 110 does not fall under the definition of `shamilat deh'. Secondly, the appellant has not annexed any sale deed or document showing that he had purchased the said land from Smt. Tugli Devi wife of Heera and she was having a valid title on the said land. Only on the basis of the jamabandi for the year 2004-05 (Annexure P-1), the appellant wants to raise the question that he is owner in possession of the said land and it does not fall under the definition of `shamilat deh' and does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. In our opinion, the appellant cannot raise such question in the writ jurisdiction. This question can only be raised before and determined by the Collector under Section 13-A of the Act. The appellant has an effective remedy under the Act. In case, he claims to be owner in possession of the said land and further claims that the said land does not vest in the Gram Panchayat, he has remedy of filing a title suit LPA No. 1172 of 2010 -5- before the competent authority under Section 13-A of the Act, where he can prove his case by leading evidence and can also pray for grant of interim injunction before the competent authority. Therefore, in our view, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition of the appellant, as in the writ jurisdiction, the appellant cannot question the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, taking decision to carve out plots for allotment to the families of the Scheduled Castes and the families living below poverty line, in terms of the State Policy, from certain lands belonging to the Gram Panchayat. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order, passed by the learned Single Judge. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE April 29, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) ndj JUDGE