This court held that the writ petition filed by allottees of village plots is premature. The petitioners were advised to approach the Assistant Collector to substantiate claims regarding valid resolutions, lawful allotments, and alleged bias by the private builder respondent before approaching the High Court.
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.
N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.19119 of 2015 Date of Decision: September 10, 2015
Bansi Lal and others
.....Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH.
Present: Mr.Adarsh Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner.
-.-
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
The petitioners claim themselves to be allottees of 100 square yard plots by the Gram Panchayat of their village under 'Mahatma Gandhi Gramin Basti Yojna'. The B.D.P.O., Palwal has filed a petition under Section 10-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as applicable to the State of Haryana, alleging that the allotments were made by the Sarpanch illegally and that the same deserves to be cancelled.
No sooner the notices were received, the petitioners have rushed to this Court, inter-alia, alleging that the impugned proceedings are initiated against them are for an ulterior motive and at the instance of a private-builder, namely, Crown Technobuild Private Limited-respondent No.7.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, we are of the considered view that the instant writ petition is
MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.09.28 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
[2]
CWP No.19119 of 2015
pre-mature at this stage. The petitioners would be well within their right to urge before the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Palwal that (i) there is valid resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat to allot them the subject plots; (ii) they were legally allotted such plots and are not unauthorized occupants; (iii) the site to carve-out the plots was approved by the Competent Authority, and (iv) that the B.D.P.O., Palwal is acting under the influence of respondent No.7-private-builder.
Needless to say that once the petitioners would raise the questions like illustrated above, the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Palwal, shall be obligated to answer the same in accordance with law and on consideration of the evidence which may be led by the parties.
Ordered accordingly.
Dasti.
[SURYA KANT] JUDGE September 10, 2015 [JASPAL SINGH] mohinder JUDGE
MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.09.28 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the instant writ petition challenging the B.D.P.O.'s cancellation proceedings is maintainable at this stage.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bansi Lal and others
State of Haryana
Crown Technobuild Private Limited
Surya Kant
Jaspal Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
