JUDGMENT Mr. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.: (Oral) - Present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that the petitioner is entitled to be temporarily released under Section 3(1)(c) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 and the Rules, and the order Annexure P-1, whereby prayer of the petitioner for grant of agricultural parole has been rejected, be quashed. 2. Petitioner was tried in case FIR No.51 dated 10.4.1996 registered at Police Station Ding, District Sirsa, under Sections 302, 307 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa. It is stated that the petitioner has already undergone 8 years and 9 months sentence till now. 3. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that parole (temporary release) has been denied to the petitioner on two grounds. Firstly, earlier he was released for house repair parole from 13.6.2007 to 12.7.2007, however, he did not return after the period of parole was over and overstayed for 777 days. Secondly, the land is in the name of the father of the petitioner. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 2007. Counsel states that as per Rule 10(ii), “if the convict overstays 30 days or more of his parole/furlough his case shall not be entertained by the Superintendent of Jail earlier than two years from the date of his surrender/arrest”. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that for his overstay, petitioner has already been punished with 18 months RI. Secondly, it is stated that it has been held in Kashmir @ Motu v. State of Haryana and another, 2001(1) RCR (Criminal) 616 that if the land is in name of the father, a son can be released on agricultural parole to enable him to help his father. It is stated that similar view was followed in Suraj Mal v. State of Haryana and others, [2007(1) Law Herald (P&H) 783] : 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 579. 5. After hearing Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the grounds taken by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar to deny parole to the petitioner are not tenable in the eyes of law. The petitioner, after his surrender, has admittedly undergone sentence of more than two years and for the overstay, he has been separately punished to 18 months RI. The petitioner, after his surrender, has admittedly undergone sentence of more than two years and for the overstay, he has been separately punished to 18 months RI. Furthermore, whether the land is joint or not, a son is always required to assist his father. 6. Consequently, the present petition is accepted; impugned order Annexure P-1 is set aside. The authorities are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner afresh without taking recourse to the grounds specified in the impugned order Annexure P-1. ------------------