Ram Chand And ORS. v. State Of Haryana And ORS.

CWP-12784-2015 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-12784-2015 Date of Decision: November 30, 2023 Ram Chand and others ......Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present:

Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for for the petitioners.

Ms.Upasana Dhawan, AAG, Haryana.

........

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.(ORAL) Petitioners have approached this Court praying for giving directions to the respondents to consider their claim for allotment of land as per entitlement i.e. land 37 kanals 16 marlas in Sq.No.95 Killa No.19(8-0), 21 (7-7), 22 (7-7) Sq.No.128 Killa No.2 (7-11) 3 min (2-19) and 3 min (412) situated in village Nejadella Tehsil and District Sirsa and for taking action against the unauthorised occupation in terms of the application submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure P-4 and further for issuance of writ in the nature of prohibition thereby staying the dispossession of the petitioners in the interest of justice.

Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset submits that petitioners are the sons of Kanhya Ram and they are claiming allotment of land by inheritance as their father Kanhya Ram was the tenant of Sahab Kaur as well as of Surjan Singh. He submits that regarding Sahab Kaur the petitioners do not claim any allotment as the same has already been MEENU 2023.12.01 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

CWP-12784-2015 -2finalised, however, their claim is only qua the land of Surjan Singh. He submits that respondents/State has not considered their claim qua the land of Surjan Singh. He has submitted that petitioners are ready to file a fresh representation qua the same to respondent No.3/Authority and the same be considered as in accordance with law.

Learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of reply filed. However, she submits that if petitioners file fresh representation, as submitted before this Court, the same would be considered by respondent No.3 in accordance with law.

After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh representation before respondent No.3 raising their grievance, as submitted before this Court, within two weeks from today and if any such representation/petition etc. is filed before respondent No.3, the same would be decided within three months from the date of its receipt as in accordance with law.

November 30, 2023 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ ) meenuss JUDGE 1.

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No 2.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No MEENU 2023.12.01 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment