CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17366 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 10, 2009 Kuldip Singh and 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. M. L. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners, who claim themselves to be the proprietors of Village Nangal Kalan, Tehsil and District Sonepat, of the land described in the petition, have approached this Court with multi-dimension pleas, including for declaring the provisions of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (Haryana Act 1992) to be illegal, ultra-vires etc. The petitioners aver that consolidation scheme was made in the year 1956. Partition of the shamlat deh was also made in the scheme and as per the mode of partition, the area inside and outside the phirni was also made. As per jamabandi of 1944-45, the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17366 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: land was shown as shamlat pana bichla hasab rasad zare khewat. So was the position in the jamabandis for the year 1957-58 and 1964-65. In the year 2004-05, the entries in the jabamandi were changed to panchayat deh, which are stated to be illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. To challenge this entry, reliance is placed on an order passed in Jai Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (2) RCR (Civil) 578. Since the matter has already been decided by a Division Bench of this Court, which has also been upheld upto Hon'ble Supreme Court, the challenge raised by the petitioners in the present writ petition on the same ground is not understood. The consequences flowing on the basis of law laid down in Jai Singh's case (supra) can be well pleaded by the petitioners before any competent authority to challenge the entries, which may have been made in this case in the name of Panchayat. Writ petition to decide the same question, which has already been decided, may not be needed and this law can be brought to the notice of the authorities for seeking change in the mutation if these have been wrongly made or if such a change was needed in view of the law laid down in Jai Singh's case (supra). In fact, the real grievance of the petitioners is that the Panchayat had passed a resolution, deciding to give this land to the T.D.I. This is the subject matter of real challenge in the petition. This apparently again is not maintainable through writ petition. If the land is mutated in the name of Gram Panchayat, the petitioners have to challenge such mutation, if wrongly made before the competent revenue authority. Writ Petition for correction of entries without CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17366 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: availing alternative remedy would not be maintainable. The petitioners have to first get their title determined to seek this relief of quashing of the resolution passed by Panchayat to give this land to T.D.I. If the case, as set up by the petitioners, is that this land belongs to the proprietors, they would have to first establish their title in this regard by moving any appropriate application before the competent authority to decide the title as such and only then they would be in a proper position to impugn the order or decision of the Gram Panchayat to give this land to T.D.I. Unless, the petitioners first get their title decided in their favour, they can not be heard to challenge the resolution of the Panchayat, which is shown to be the owners of the land, which Panchayat has decided to give to T.D.I. Faced with this situation, the petitioners could not say much except to say that they have already challenged the order whereby the Government has decided to acquire this land. The relief claimed in that petition, challenging the acquisition would not have anything common in the relief claimed in the present petition, which is to challenge the resolution of the Panchayat to give this land to T.D.I. The petitioners will have to have their alternative remedy to challenge the title of the Gram Panchayat concerning this land or the mutation, which has been recorded in favour of the Gram Panchayat. For this relief, the present petition would not be an appropriate remedy and, thus, not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. February 10, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE