The bench disposed of the writ petition challenging the Haryana Act No.9 of 1992, relying on Jai Singh, and left the matter for appropriate forum determination.
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.
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.12205 of 1992 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.02.2015
Thakur Dass & Ors. ... Petitioners
VS.
State of Haryana & Ors. ... Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: None for the petitioners
Mr. RKS Brar, Addl. AG Haryana
None for Gram Panchayat
SURYA KANT, J. (Oral)
(1) Learned counsel(s) for the petitioners and the Gram Panchayat are not present. The cause of their non-appearance, as it appears, is that according to them, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous for the reasons assigned hereinafter.
(2) The petitioners have primarily questioned the vires of the Haryana Act No.9 of 1992 with regard to the vesting of certain types of lands in Gram Panchayat as shamlat deh .
(3) Learned State counsel points out that the vires of abovestated Act were considered by a Full Bench of this Court in Jai
Singh v. State of Haryana, 2003(2) RCR (Civil) 578 wherein
briefly it has been held that the land which were reserved for a
V.VISHAL 2015.03.03 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
���������������������
��� �����
common purpose, whether utilized or unutilized under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, shall be managed and controlled by the Gram Panchayat for all intents and purposes.
(4) The factual issues, however, in each case are required to be determined by the authorities under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 keeping in view the principles laid down in Jai Singh’s case.
(5) The instant writ petition is thus disposed of in terms of the Jai Singh’s case leaving it open for the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum, if need be.
(6) Ordered accordingly.
������������� ������
�����������
��������������
������������������ ������
V.VISHAL 2015.03.03 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Haryana Act No.9 of 1992 regarding vesting of lands has the required validity.
Whether factual issues regarding common lands managed by Gram Panchayat require determination by authorities.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jai Singh v. State of HaryanaRelied on¶22
Jai Singh v. State of Haryana, 2003(2) RCR (Civil) 578
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Thakur Dass & Ors.
State of Haryana & Ors.
Surya Kant
Raj Mohan Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
