The High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to the vires of Haryana Act No.13 of 1996, holding it was justified to validate land sales prior to a Supreme Court judgment, dismissing discrimination claims.
null
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.11001 of 2008 Date of decision: 21.1.2011
Babu Ram
…..Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana and others
……Respondents
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
Present: Mr.S.K.S.Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Kamal Sehgal, Addl.A.G.Haryana
Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral)
In this writ petition, the petitioner has laid challenge to the vires of Haryana Act No.13 of 1996.
As per information supplied at the bar by counsel for the parties, a Division of this Court, vide order dated 7.4.2010 passed in CWP No.4816 of 1986 titled as, Gram Panchayat of village Kum-Kalan versus The State of Punjab and others , has upheld vires of the above said provisions.
The present case is squarely covered against the petitioner, by the judgment, mentioned above.
It is further contention of counsel for the petitioner that vide amendment effected in the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (as applicable to the State of Haryana), vide Act No.13 of 1996, discrimination has been done with the petitioner. It is
2
Civil Writ Petition No.11001 of 2008
contention of counsel for the petitioner that by adding Clause (ii-a) in Subsection 5 of Section 2 , sale of Gram Panchayat’s land before 9th day of July 1985 is saved, whereas, by not giving that relief to others, who have purchased the land after that date, injustice has been done to them. Amended Clause (ii-a) in Sub-section 5 of Section 2 reads thus:-
“(ii-a) was shamilat deh, but, has been allotted on quasi-permanent basis to a displaced person, or, has been otherwise transferred to any person by sale or by any other manner whatsoever after the commencement of this Act, but on or before the 9th day of July, 1985.”
We are not inclined to give any relief to the petitioner on the basis of above arguments.
It is noted by this Court in the judgment in the case of Gram Panchayat of village Kum-Kalan (supra), that the government has added the above said provision with a view to give relief to those who have purchased the land before judgment pronounced by their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Gram Panchayat of village Jamalpur v. Malwinder Singh and others, (AIR 1985 Supreme Court 1394) on 9.7.1985. We are of the opinion that procedure adopted is perfectly justified. It is not open to the Courts to issue directions to the legislature to frame a law in a particular manner. Otherwise also, it is not a case of discrimination with the petitioner because vide amendment in question, the respondent-State has only protected sale of Gram Panchayat’s property to the new land owners, which was effected before pronouncement of judgment in the case of Gram Panchayat of village Jamalpur’s case (supra). Possibly, no sale of the
3
Civil Writ Petition No.11001 of 2008
Gram Panchayat’s land after that date can be protected and validated in
favour of the private individuals.
Dismissed.
(Jasbir Singh) Judge
21.01.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether amendment of Haryana Act No.13 of 1996 discriminates against the petitioner.
Whether violation of Articles 14 and 141 constitutes acceptance of vires of challenged Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gram Panchayat of village Kum-Kalan versus The State of Punjab and othersFollowed¶12
Gram Panchayat of village Kum-Kalan versus The State of Punjab and others (CWP No.4816 of 1986)
Gram Panchayat of village Jamalpur v. Malwinder Singh and othersReferred¶20
Gram Panchayat of village Jamalpur v. Malwinder Singh and others, (AIR 1985 Supreme Court 1394) · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Babu Ram
State of Haryana
Jasbir Singh
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
