Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DAYA NAND & ANR versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Daya Nand & Anr v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-12032-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 5309 (7 August 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

C.W.P. No. 12032 of 2006

Date of Decision: Aug. 4,2006

Daya Nand and another .................................... Petitioners Versus

State of Haryana and others ...................... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nirmal Yadav

Present: Mr. H.N.Mehtani, Advocate

for the petitioners.

...

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.

The petitioners have prayed that a writ in the nature of Certiorari be issued quashing the order dated 13.4.2006 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hissar, and the order dated 17.7.2006 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Commissioner, Hissar Division, Hissar, and also for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing respondent Nos. 2,5,6 and 8 to sell the land measuring 164 sq.

yards which is part of killa No. 184/1 of the shamlat land situated at village Gorchhi, District Hissar, as per policy/instructions of the Haryana Government dated 16.10.2000.

The case of the petitioners is that they are in unauthorized occupation of the Panchayat land measuring 164 sq. yards falling in Khasra No. 184/1 and their case for the purchase of the said land is covered by the policy decision taken by the State of Haryana vide order dated 16.10.2000 (Annexure P-3) as well as Rule 8.3 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules 1964 (for short `the Rules). It is further the case of the petitioners that the Gram Panchayat, Gorchhi, had twice passed resolutions whereby it recommended for selling the land in question to the petitioners. It has been submitted that despite the recommendations made by the Gram Panchayat, the Deputy Commissioner, Hissar, has declined to sell the land to the petitioners and, thus, has violated the policy of the State Government (Annexure P-3).

There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioners have occupied the shamlat land belonging to the Gram Panchayat which is situated in front of the house of one Parkash -respondent No.7 illegally. The petitioners have constructed a 8 ft. long C.W.P. No. 12032 of 2006 [ 2 ]

wall due to which respondent No.7 is unable to get fresh air and light from the window in his house. The petitioners have also fixed a door on the land unauthorizedly occupied by them and the area is being used for parking of vehicles and cattle etc. In Clause `e' of para 3 of the policy decision dated 16.10.2000, reliance on which has been placed by the petitioners, it has specifically been mentioned as under:-

"No obstacle should come in the way for the inconvenience of the villagers by the sale of such land." A perusal of the above condition makes it crystal clear that a person who is in unauthorized occupation of the Panchayat land does not have the absolute right to purchase the said land from the Gram Panchayat.

Before passing orders with regard to sale of such land, the convenience of the co-villagers is also to be taken into consideration. In case the illegal construction raised by a person costs hindrance to someone then the authorities concerned are not bound to sell the Panchayat land to him. In the instant case, before rejecting the claim of the petitioners, the Deputy Commissioner had obtained spot inspection report from the Block Development and Panchayat Officer who vide his report (Annexure P-6) reported that in case the land is sold to the petitioners the same would cause obstacle and hindrance to respondent No.7. A cursory look at the report submitted by respondent No.5 would show that the construction raised by the petitioners has blocked the free flow of air to the house of his neighbour-Parkash and is also causing mental strain to him with the movement of vehicles etc. in front of his house as the area which is in unauthorized occupation of the petitioners is not being utilized for residential purposes.

In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner and, accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA )

JUDGE

4.8.2006 ( NIRMAL YADAV )

Rupi JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.