DHARAM VEER SINGH AND ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2005 INSC 403
- Decided
- 6 September 2005
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- B P SINGH
Holding
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioners lacked merit and appropriate locus standi to challenge the consolidation scheme.
Summary
The petitioners, land holders affected by a consolidation scheme for Shamlat Deh lands, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution alleging displacement because they were not parties to an earlier High Court writ petition (Civil Writ Petition No. 18310 of 1998) that had been dismissed. The earlier petition had also been appealed before this Court as Civil Appeal No. 646 of 2000, which was dismissed. The Supreme Court examined whether the petitioners had locus standi to challenge the scheme separately and found no merit in their claim. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merits, reaffirming the dismissal of the earlier appeal. The petitioners' challenge to the consolidation scheme was therefore rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether petitioners who were not parties to the earlier High Court writ petition have locus standi to file a separate writ petition under Article 32 challenging the consolidation scheme.
- Whether the consolidation scheme for Shamlat Deh lands can be contested by the petitioners after the dismissal of the earlier writ petition and appeal.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 32
Subjects
Judgment
,
A DHARAM VEER SINGH AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
B [B.P. SINGH AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.]
Land Laws and Agricultural Tenancy : ~
""-
Consolidation scheme-Framed in regard to Sham/at Deh Land-
c Tenure-holders affected filing writ petition in High Court and later appeal*
in Supreme Court-Some of the tenure-holders who were not parties before
High Court, filing writ petition in Supreme Court-Held, Civil Appeal having
been dismissed, writ petition also dismissed as devoid of merits.
*Bhagirath Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr., [2005) 7 SCC
D 556, referred to.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 413 of2003.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
E
S.K. Verma for the Petitioners.
Ajay Siwach, Pardeep Dahya and T.V. George for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
B.P. SINGH, J.: This Writ Petition has been filed by some of the land
holders who are affected by the Consolidation Scheme framed in regard to
Shamlat Deh lands of the concerned villages: The said scheme was challenged
by some other proprietors and co-sharers in Civil Writ Petition No. 18310 of
G 1998 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The said
writ petition having been dismissed, Civil Appeal No. 646 of 2000 was
preferred before this Court by Special Leave. Dispite the order of status-quo
granted by this Court pending the appeal, the petitioners alleged that they were
before displaced since they were not parties in the writ petition filed before
~
the High Court.
H
',k
1180
DHARAM VEER SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA [B.P. SINGH, J.] 1181
They, therefore, filed the instant writ petition which has been heard A
along with civil Appeal No. 646 of of 2000.
- We have delivered our judgment today dismissing the Civil Appeal No.
646 of 2000. We find no merit in this writ petition filed by the petitioners
and the same is accordingly dismissed.
B
R.P. Appeal dismissed.
-
...
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.