Dismissed

Mangat Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Feb 2013CWP/2016/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged allotment of 100 sq. yards plots to Scheduled Castes despite absence of a land utilisation plan under Rule 3 of the 1964 Rules. The court directed the petitioners to pursue their alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 6 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners relegated to file an appeal under Section 6 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.

Mangat Ram and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No.2016 of 2012 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No.2016 of 2012 Date of Decision: 13.2.2013

¶4

Mangat Ram and others

¶5

..Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana and others

¶8

..Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Mahavir Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr. D.Khanna, Addl.A.G., Haryana for respondent nos.1 to 3.

¶12

Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate for respondent No.4.

¶13

RAJIVE BHALLA, J. (ORAL)

¶14

The petitioners challenge instructions/policy dated 01.02.2008 (Annexure P-3), whereby the government has taken a decision to allot 100 sq. yards plots, to Scheduled Castes etc.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioners submits that though legality of the instructions has been upheld in Civil Writ Petition No.9180 of 2009 (Rajbir Singh versus State of Haryana and others), decided on 16.11.2009 and in LPA No.1322 of 2009 (Gurmukh Singh and another versus State of Haryana and others), decided on 08.1.2010, but as the Gram Panchayat has not prepared a land utilisation plan, in accordance with Rule 3 of the Punjab Village Common Lands

¶16

Civil Writ Petition No.2016 of 2012 2

¶17

(Regulation) Rules, 1964 (as applicable to the State of Haryana) (hereinafter referred to as the “1964 Rules”), the action of the Gram Panchayat in allotting 100 sq. yards plots, should be set aside.

¶18

The Gram Panchayat has filed a reply appending, therewith, a resolution purporting to record a land utilisation plan in terms of Rule 3 of the 1964 Rules.

¶19

We have heard counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion as to the correctness or otherwise, of the land utilisation plan, dispose of the writ petition by relegating the petitioners to their alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 6 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (as applicable to the State of Haryana). In case an appeal is filed, it shall be considered and decided, within three months from its filing.

¶20

( RAJIVE BHALLA ) JUDGE

¶21

( REKHA MITTAL ) JUDGE

¶22

13.2.2013 VK

Mangat Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangat Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manjit Singh Vs Director, Rural Develp. and Panch. and Anr.

Gram Panchayat Paintawas Khurd Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Norti Ram Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Naib Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Jasbir Lal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Kartar Singh and Ors. Vs Commissioner-Cum-Deputy Ludhiana and Ors.