Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 15324 P&H
Judgement Date : 6 September, 2023
CWP-1755-2017 (O&M) -1-
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:117339
104
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-1755-2017(O&M)
Date of Decision: September 06, 2023
Ramji Lal ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present:Mr.R.S.Mamli, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms.Upasana Dhawan, AAG, Haryana.
Mr.Robin Dutt, Advocate,for respondents No.6 and 7.
........
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.(ORAL)
CM-15081-CWP-2023
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is
allowed. Replication is taken on record.
Main case
Petitioner has approached this Court praying for issuance of
directions to respondents No.2 to 5 to implement the order, dated
07.06.2010, Annexure P-5, passed by respondent No.4, in letter and spirit. It
is further prayed to direct the official respondents to restrain respondents
No.6 and 7 from acquiring undue enrichment anymore in respect of the land,
which has already been declared surplus by the competent authorities under
the Act.
It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that
petitioner was the tenant on the land since long. He has submitted that
learned Collector in the order dated 07.06.2010 had concluded that after
deducting 10 standard acre and 11½ units area of land, which stood
sold/acquired/changed ownership, area measuring 66 standard acre and 2½ MEENU 2023.09.15 15:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-1755-2017 (O&M) -2-
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:117339
unit was left. Out of which land owner Mandir Luxmi Narayana, Village
Jaroda was allowed 30 standard acre its reserve area whereas the remaining
30 standard acre and 2½ unit area had been declared surplus (tenants
permissible area). He has submitted that once it has been found that 30
standard acre and 2½ units was surplus area, the petitioner is entitled for the
allotment of the land out of the surplus area. He further submits that for
redressal of his grievances, he had sent a Legal Notice as well on
05.12.2016, which is Annexure P-9, however, no action has been taken on
the same till date. However, he fairly submits that he would file a fresh
representation before Deputy Commissioner or the prescribed Authority for
redressal of his grievances, and the same be decided expeditiously.
However, learned State counsel has submitted that the order
dated 07.06.2010 passed by learned Collector had already been challenged
by way of filing the appeal and the same was dismissed.
After hearing counsel for the parties, the present petition is
disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate representation
for redressal of his grievances before respondent No.4, i.e. the Collector
Agrarian/SDM Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar/Prescribed Authority,
within ten days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and if
any such application/representation is filed, the same would be decided by
the said Authority as per law within four weeks from the date of its receipt.
September 06, 2023 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
meenuss JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No
2. Whether reportable ? Yes/No
MEENU
2023.09.15 15:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!