Pritam Kaur v. State Of Haryana & ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.24382 of 2015 Date of Decision: November 20, 2015 Pritam Kaur ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA.

--- Present: Mr.Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.-

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner claims that the Gram Panchayat of her village, namely, respondent No.5 has made an illegal proposal to carve out and allot plots measuring 100 square yards to Economic Weaker Persons out of the land which is to be allotted to the petitioner under "Grow More Food Scheme". It is claimed that the petitioner applied for the renewal/grant of lease for 99 years in respect of the subject land under Rule 6A of the Punjab Gram Shamlat Land (Regulation) Rules, 1962, as applicable to Haryana (hereinafter referred to as '1962 Rules') and this Court vide order dated 28.10.2014 passed in a bunch of writ petitions including CWP No.4927 of 2010 (Satpal Singh and another versus State of Haryana and others) (P-7) has already directed the Competent Authority to take a final decision in respect of the above-mentioned claim of the petitioners and other similarly placed persons. It is thus, MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.11.28 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No.24382 of 2015 [2] contended that without awaiting for the final outcome of the above-mentioned directions, the Gram Panchayat has meanwhile proposed to allot 100 square yard plots thereby threatening dispossession of the petitioner.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the documents on record but without expressing any views on the merits of his alleged entitlement to seek lease of the subject land, the instant writ petition is disposed of with a direction that let the claim of the petitioner in terms of the notification dated 13.12.2013 whereby Rule 6A was inserted in the above-mentioned 1962 Rules, be decided on merits within three months and till then it is directed that any decision regarding carving-out of plots etc. shall be subject to final outcome of the decision to be taken by the State Government.

Ordered accordingly.

Dasti.

[SURYA KANT] JUDGE November 20, 2015 [HARI PAL VERMA] mohinder JUDGE MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.11.28 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh