Partly allowed

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

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Feb 2013CWP/24750/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this CWP, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana examined the petitioner's relief regarding the allotment of residential plots under the Mahatma Gandhi Gramin Basti Yojana Scheme. While granting an application to record a reply, the Court directed the State Government to consider a detailed representation from eligible families within two months to fulfill its obligation under the scheme.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted opportunity to file detailed representation before the State Government and Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat. State directed to consider the same with a hearing in two mo

Naib Singh and Ors. Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CWP No.24750 of 2012

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

CWP No.24750 of 2012 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 13.02.2013

¶6

Naib Singh and others ...Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Haryana and others ...Respondents

¶9

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

¶10

Present : Mr. J.S.Cooner, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr. D.Khanna, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

¶12

Mr. Ashok Kumar Khubbar, Advocate, for respondent No.6.

¶13

RAJIVE BHALLA, J. (ORAL)

¶14

C.M. No.2056 of 2013

¶15

Allowed, as prayed for.

¶16

C.M. No.2057 of 2013

¶17

Prayer in this application is to place on record reply filed on

¶18

behalf of respondent No.6.

¶19

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶20

Reply filed on behalf of respondent No.6 is taken on record.

¶21

C.M. stands disposed of.

¶22

CWP No.24750 of 2012

¶23

The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Gram Panchayat to allot 100 Sq. Yards residential plots to the petitioners, under the Mahatma Gandhi Gramin Basti Yojana Scheme dated 01.02.2008, framed by the State of Haryana.

¶24

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Gram Panchayat

¶25

CWP No.24750 of 2012

¶26

-2-

¶27

passed two resolutions allotting plots, but these resolutions were cancelled, under Section 47 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. The Gram Panchayat has, thereafter, refused to pass a resolution to comply with its obligation, under the Mahatma Gandhi Gramin Basti Yojana Scheme. It is prayed that a writ of mandamus may be issued to the State of Haryana and/or to the Gram Panchayat directing them to comply with the scheme and to allot plots to eligible members of Scheduled Castes etc.

¶28

Counsel for the Gram Panchayat submits that as the petitioners own plots, allotted to them at different times and are owners of houses, the Gram Panchayat cannot allot plots to the petitioners. It is further submitted that as no person is eligible in the village for allotment of plots, the Gram Panchayat has not passed a new resolution.

¶29

Counsel for the State of Haryana submits that resolutions passed by the Gram Panchayat have been annulled. The right to pass a resolution vests with the Gram Panchayat. The State of Haryana cannot force a Gram Panchayat to pass a resolution to implement the scheme. Counsel for the State of Haryana, however, submits that, in case, the petitioners make a suitable representation, it shall be duly considered and decided, in accordance with law.

¶30

We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings.

¶31

The short point that arises for consideration is whether a writ of mandamus should be issued to the Gram Panchayat directing it to allot 100 Square Yards residential plots to families of Scheduled Castes etc., in accordance with the Mahatma Gandhi Gramin Basti Yojana Scheme, dated 01.02.2008, framed by the State of Haryana.

¶32

CWP No.24750 of 2012

¶33

-3-

¶34

A relevant extract from the scheme, framed by the State of Haryana, reads as under:-

¶35

“In reference to the subject cited above, it is to inform you that the Government has taken a decision to provide 100 Sq. yards residential plot to the suitable families of scheduled caste and poor families of other castes. These plots will be given from the available Shamilat land and where there is no suitable Shamilat is available, land will be made available there as per requirement by way of transfer from private land or by acquisition.”

¶36

The scheme has been framed to enable a Gram Panchayat, in the exercise of its power under Section 5 and 5A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, (as applicable to the State of Haryana) (hereinafter referred to as the '1961 Act'), to allot plots to eligible members of Scheduled Castes etc. It also provides that where suitable Shamilat land is not available, to provide land by way of transfer from private land or by acquisition.

¶37

The scheme, in our considered opinion, confers an enforceable right, upon eligible persons, to pray for allotment of 100 Sq. Yards residential plots and an obligation upon the Gram Panchayat to allot such plots and where suitable land is not available with the Gram Panchayat, to call upon State Government to provide land by acquiring land. The State of Haryana cannot shrug away its obligation or hide behind a plea that it cannot direct the Gram Panchayat to pass a resolution for allotment of plots. It is for the State of Haryana to ensure that its scheme is implemented and, if necessary, procure land by acquisition, as provided in the scheme.

¶38

In this view of the matter, an opportunity is granted to the petitioners to file a detailed representation before the Secretary, Rural

¶39

CWP No.24750 of 2012

¶40

-4-

¶41

Development and Panchayat, Haryana. The representation, so filed, shall be considered, in accordance with the scheme, the stand taken by the panchayat, and by affording an opportunity of hearing to all parties concerned, and, thereafter, decided by taking a conscious decision in the matter, within two months from the receipt of the representation from the petitioners.

¶42

(RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE

¶43

13.02.2013 adhikari

¶44

(REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naib Singh 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.

Mangat Ram 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.