Mohar Singh v. State Of Haryana And Others
CWP-25173-2017 -1HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-25173-2017 Date of Decision: November 06, 2017 Mohar Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL 1.
To be referred to the Reporters or not?
Yes/No 2.
Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No.
3.
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No .......
Present:
Mr.Atul Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.
........
SURYA KANT, J.
The petitioner is a resident of village Mehrampur, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mohindergarh. He alleges that the Gram Panchayat of his village is removing the alleged encroachments on pick and choose basis and that too without getting passed any order of eviction under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as applicable to State of Haryana (for brevity,'the 1961 Act'). It is further alleged that a part of petitioner's house has also been demolished on the basis of some demarcation report even though eviction petition under Section 7 of the 1961 Act is still pending against him. The petitioner is attributing motive to the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat as according to him no action is being taken against those who are related or close to the Sarpanch. Meenu 2017.11.15 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh [2] All these issues have been raised by the petitioner in his
CWP-25173-2017 -2complaint (Annexure P-1) as well as Legal Notice dated 17.08.2017 (Annexure P-3). Though the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat has denied the petitioner's allegations by way of his reply to the Legal Notice (Annexure P-4), but it appears to us that the allegations regarding pick and choose action require to be looked into by some higher authority. [3] Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, with a direction to DDPO, Narnaul to depute BDPO of the concerned area to look into the allegations made by the petitioner and take further remedial action in accordance with law, if need be. Let the needful be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. ( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE November 06, 2017 ( SUDHIR MITTAL ) meenuss JUDGE 1.
Whether speaking/reasoned ?
Yes/No 2.
Whether reportable ?
Yes/No Meenu 2017.11.15 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh