Dharam Veer Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: B.P. Singh
Judgment Date: 2005-09-06
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal dismissed. Writ Petition No. 413 of 2003 and Civil Appeal No. 646 of 2000 dismissed.
Final Disposition: Writ petition and Civil Appeal dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Dharam Veer Singh and others

Respondents

State of Haryana
Ors.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• S.K. Verma

Counsels for Respondents

• Ajay Siwach
• Pardeep Dahya
• T.V. George

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition is filed by land holders affected by the Consolidation Scheme framed for Shamlat Deh lands in the concerned villages. The scheme was challenged earlier by other proprietors in High Court proceedings (Civil Writ Petition No. 18310 of 1998) which were dismissed, leading to Civil Appeal No. 646 of 2000 before the Supreme Court. Despite a status-quo order issued by this Court pending the appeal, the petitioners contended that they were displaced since they were not parties to the High Court writ petition. The instant writ petition, brought under Article 32 of the Constitution, was heard along with Civil Appeal No. 646 of 2000. The Court, while dismissing the Civil Appeal, held that the writ petition filed by the petitioners had no merit and was accordingly dismissed. The judgment by Justice B.P. Singh confirms that the consolidation scheme affects Shamlat Deh lands and clarifies the court’s approach to such schemes where some tenure-holders are not parties to the original High Court petition. The decision underscores that those not party to the High Court proceedings cannot relitigate their grievances via a separate Supreme Court writ petition. Conclusion: both the writ petition and the Civil Appeal are dismissed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 32 of the Constitution of India

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the Consolidation Scheme adversely affects Shamlat Deh landholders and that they were not parties to the High Court writ petition. As a result, their rights were not adjudicated there, and they should have been given opportunity to be heard. They submitted that the status-quo order issued by this Court pending the Appeal did not cure the fundamental omission of their participation and relief. They invoked Article 32 to challenge the scheme and sought relief from the Court on grounds of natural justice and violation of their tenure rights, urging reconsideration of the scheme’s validity.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that the Consolidation Scheme was properly framed and that the petitioners, by not being parties to the High Court writ petition, could not challenge the scheme through an independent writ petition in this Court. They submitted that the High Court rightly dismissed the writ petition, and the Civil Appeal was disposed of on its merits. They maintained that the status-quo order was appropriate and that there was no merit in allowing interference with the scheme at this stage.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Bhagirath Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr.	2005 7 SCC 556	Mentioned Only	The judgment refers to Bhagirath Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr. and cites it as a referred authority, without applying its principle decisively.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

, A B ""- E DHARAM VEER SINGH AND ORS. _v._ STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 [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._ D _*Bhagirath Singh & Anr._ v. _State of Haryana and Anr.,_ [2005) 7 SCC 556, referred to. CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 413 of2003. Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 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 H[the High Court. ] ~ ',k 1180 B 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. R.P. Appeal dismissed.