AMAR DUTT,J - (1.) DEV Kumar, petitioner had filed the present petition to challenge the order passed by the respondents rejecting his application for parole on the ground that there was no agricultural holding in the name of the petitioner and that the family is joint in residence with the parents and other relations and that the holding stands in the name of the mother and no one cultivates the land. According to the petitioner, this failure to cultivate the agricultural land belonging to them was on account of the non- availability of the petitioner to help in the agricultural operations and, therefore, the petitioner prays that as he alone can cultivate the land holding of the parents, his request for grant of parole should again be considered and disposed of. Alongwith the petition, he had filed a certificate of the Gram Panchayat indicating that other brothers live separately from the parents and had recommended that the petitioner should be allowed agricultural parole.
(2.) IN the reply filed on behalf of the respondents by the Superintendent, District Jail, Rohtak, it was reiterated that the petitioner is not in cultivating possession of any portion of the land belonging to the mother and, therefore, it is submitted that the order rejecting petitioner's application for release on parole could not be faulted with. According to Section 3(1)(c) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, a prisoner is entitled to be released on parole for cultivating the land belonging to his parents which is in his possession. Admittedly, the land belonging to the mother of the petitioner is not being cultivated and there is no other document available on the record to show that the petitioner is in possession thereof. In this view of the matter, there would be hardly any justification for releasing the petitioner on parole. The order passed by the respondents denying him parole is upheld.
(3.) FOR the reasons recorded above, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.;