← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/5067/2016disposed of

Avtar Singh & ORS v. State Of Haryana & ORS

2016-03-17Ms. Justice Navita Singh,Mr Justice Jaswant Singh2 pages

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.5067 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.03.2016 **** Avtar Singh & Ors.

... Petitioners VS.

State of Haryana & Ors.

... Respondents **** CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI ****

Present:

Mr. Ved Parkash, Advocate for the petitioners **** SURYA KANT, J. (Oral)  (1) The petitioners who appear to have constructed their residential houses in the agriculture fields at a site which is known as Dhani/Dera (hamlet) had earlier approached this court through CWP No.16885 of 2015 seeking a direction for inclusion of their names in the Voter-List of Municipal Council, Safidon, District Jind. The direction was sought on the premise that the petitioners' residential houses are located within the Municipal limits and they are entitled to be included in the Voter-List of Ward No.10 of the said Municipality. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the District Administration to hold a fact-finding enquiry and take an appropriate decision.

(2) Pursuant thereto, the Deputy Commissioner, Jind has passed a well-reasoned order dated 20.01.2016 (P6) whereby he has concluded on the basis of two spot inspection reports submitted by (i) Secretary, Municipal Council, Safidon and (ii) SDO (Civil), Safidon that the petitioners are residing in a Dera which is outside the Municipal V.VISHAL 2016.03.



           limits of Safidon. The petitioners' claims for inclusion of their name in the Municipal Council, Safidon has thus been rejected. (3) The aggrieved petitioners assail the above-mentioned order. (4) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at a considerable length. In view of the categorical finding of fact based upon inspection reports of two independent authorities that the petitioners' dera is located outside the Municipal limits of Safidon, we see no reason to take a different view more-so when there is no material on record to impinge the credibility of the two reports.

(5) Faced with this, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners who have their permanent abode, in any case, are entitled to be included in the Voter-List of the village within whose revenue estate their houses are located. Since no such claim was earlier put up by the petitioners, we refrain from expressing any views except to say that the names of petitioners deserve to be included in the VoterList of the village for which they are found eligible. Let the petitioners put up such a claim before the Prescribed Authority who shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law. It shall be appreciated if a final decision is taken within six months.

(6) Disposed of accordingly.

  









 

 

 

              

              

 

 

 

   V.VISHAL 2016.03.29 13:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document