Shamlat Land--Panchayat may, with the previous approval of the government, sell its shamlat land for certain purposes as enumerated in rule 12 of the 1964 Rules.

Jaswant Singh, J.

1. Application is allowed. Counter affidavit dated 2.4.2008 to the additional affidavit dated 1.4.2008 of Harbans Lal, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat village Sambhalki is taken on record.

2. The present writ petition in the form of Public Interest Litigation has been filed by 29 petitioners, who are residents of village Sambhalki, Tehsil & District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. They have, inter-alia, prayed for quashing of impugned order dated 19.10.2007 (Annexure P. 14), recommendations/proposal dated 20.4.2007 (Annexure P. 12), assessment reports regarding market value dated 24.9.2007 and 17.10.2007 (Annexure P. 13 collectively) vide which shamlat land measuring 80 kanals, 6 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Sambhalki. Tehsil & District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali has been approved to be exchanged with the land measuring 48 bighas, 4 biswas (80 kanals, 10 marlas) owned by respondent No. 12 in village Raipur Khurd. Tehsil & District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. Further prayer has been made for quashing the impugned resolution dated 15.7.2006 (Annexure P.4) vide which respondent No. 6-Gram panchayat village Sambhalki, has decided to exchange the abovesaid shamlat land with the land of respondent No. 12 Colonizer.

3. Facts giving rise to the matter in controversy are that respondent No. 6-gram panchayat village Sambhalki, Tehsil & District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali (hereinafter to be referred as "gram panchayat") was the owner of land measuring 80 kanals, 6 marlas comprised in the revenue record as detailed in para No. 2 of the writ petition situated in revenue estate of village Sambhalki, and the land being "shamlat deh" was vested in the gram panchayat. Vide resolution dated 15.7.2006 (Annexure P.4) passed by the gram panchayat, it was decided that the said shamlat land of the gram panchayat be exchanged, because the entire land surrounding it had been sold out and there was no source of water available for the said land and there was only once source of income by way of auction of that land, which was not being done. Therefore, members of the gram panchayat resolved that this land be exchanged with some other better land so that the gram panchayat should get some income therefrom and it was further resolved that the said shamlat land measuring 80 kanals, 6 marlas should be exchanged with the land situated in village Raipur Khurd, Tehsil & District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali total area measuring 48 bighas, 8 biswas (80 kanals, 10 marlas) owned by respondent No. 12-colonizer. Therefore, the exchange of the abovesaid land was recommended to respondent No. 2-Director, Rural Development and Panchayat. Government of Punjab for necessary action.

4. It is necessary to mention here that it was recorded in the resolution that same was acceptable to all the members of the panchayat and it bears signatures/thumb impressions of Harbans Singh respondent No. 7 (Sarpanch), Santosh Kumari, respondent No. 8 (Member), Suresh Pal, respondent No. 9 (Member), Som Nath, respondent No. 11 (Member) and Harsharan Kaur (Panchayat Secretary).

5. It is further necessary to mention here that the land measuring 106 kanals, 18 marlas of gram panchayat village Sukhgarh, Tehsil & District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali was also resolved to be exchanged by the gram panchayat of village Sukhgarh against the land measuring 107 kanals, 10 marlas situated in village Raipur Khurd owned by respondent No. 12.

6. It is apparent from the record that before taking any action by the Government of Punjab on the abovesaid proposals in both the cases, residents of village Sukhgarh and Sambhalki filed two different writ petitions challenging the resolutions passed by the respective gram panchayats and when those writ petitions bearing C.W.P. No. 15587 of 2006 titled Randhir Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. C.P.W. No 15587 (relating to village Sukhgarh) and C.W.P. No. 16096 of 2006 titled Bhagwan Sarup and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors. C.P.W. No. 16096 of 2006 (relating