Judgment:
CWP No.21671 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.21671 of 2011 Date of decision : February 10, 2014 Sneh Lata ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present : Mr.J.P.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana.
Mr.Tapan Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.5.
Mr.Rajneesh Chadwal, Advocate for respondent No.6.
Rajan Gupta, J.
(Oral) Petitioner prays for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow her to retain 200 sq.yards of land, which is in her unauthorised possession and to raise construction thereon.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon policy Annexure P/9 to contend that petitioner is entitled to the land from the concerned Gram Panchayat under the said category.
Besides she is a poor lady and needs a shelter over her head.
Learned State counsel as well counsel for Gram Panchayat have opposed the plea.
They submit that husband of the petitioner is serving in Haryana Police and her two sons are constables in Delhi Police.
According CWP No.21671 of 2011 2 to them policy (Annexure R/4) dated 1.2.2008 has been issued by the Government which debars allotment of residential plot to a family whose member is employed with the Government or a Board, Corporation, Municipal Corporation etc.Learned State counsel has further contended that petitioner has concealed material facts.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner preferred instant petition before this court with the plea that being a poor landless lady, having no place to reside, she was entitled to the allotment of 200 sq.yards of land where she had raised a temporary shelter (chhapar).She further contended that a electric connection and telephone line was installed in the said chhapar and she was paying the chula tax to the panchayat.
Keeping in view her dire need, she was entitled to the allotment of residential plot.
Petitioner never disclosed in the writ petition that she was wife of a police official and her two sons were also employed in Delhi Police.
At the time of issuing notice of motion, this court directed that demolition of the thatched roof (chhapar) be stayed.
It is evident that petitioner was granted interim relief on the basis of mis- representation and concealment of material facts.
Besides the fact that petitioner is not entitled to any relief, she is liable to pay costs for misleading this court.
Under the circumstances, this petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- to the remitted to the Haryana State Legal Services Authority.
( Rajan Gupta) February 10, 2014 Judge BB