Panchayati Raj – Establishment of Gram Sabha Areas – Partition/division of Panchayat at lands can be made on the ratio of population of two village Gram Panchayats

Mr. A .B. Chaudhari, J.:- By way of present writ petition, the petitioner through its Sarpanch has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 09.08.2018 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala, respondent No.5, by which partition/division of area of lands and allotment thereof was made between the Gram Panchayat, Nanak Nagri (the petitioner) and the Gram Panchayat Village Chaheru, Tehsil Phagwara, District Kapurthala (respondent No.7).

FACTS

2. In the year 1988, the Gram Panchayat Village Chaheru, respondent No.7 was bifurcated and from it, the petitioner Gram Panchayat Nanak Nagri was carved out. The petitioner Gram Panchayat had made a representation in 2010 when the Deputy Director (Development) had taken up the file, but no action took place. As per Section 3 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘Act of 1994), assets and liabilities were also required to be divided and the newly carved out petitioner Gram Panchayat was required to be handed over the same. The petitioner Gram Panchayat filed CWP No.15526 of 2016 in this Court and this Court vide order dated 03.08.2016 (Annexure P-1) had directed respondent No.5-The Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala to decide the issue regarding partition of lands. The Divisional Deputy Director Rural Development & Panchayat, Jalandhar and The Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala, respondent No.5 then passed orders dated 14.02.2017/21.02.2017 partitioning the property. The partition was also sanctioned in the name of petitioner Gram Panchayat. However, the petitioner raised a grievance that certain portion of the lands allotted to the petitioner Gram Panchayat has been in illegal occupation of village people and then until and unless the same is got vacated, the partition or distribution cannot be made. By the impugned order, 61% of the area of the Panchayat has been allotted to respondent No.7-Gram Panchayat Chaheru and 39% to the petitioner Gram Panchayat-Nanak Nagri. The petitioner Gram Panchayat again filed a petition challening the order dated 14.02.2017 passed by the Divisional Deputy Director Rural Development & Panchayat, Jalandhar before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2, on 06.04.2017, asked the Divisional Deputy Director Rural Development & Panchayat, Jalandhar to hear both the Panchayats and to make a fresh order.

The land in unauthorised possession of village people first should have been got vacated by filing legal proceedings under the Punjab Village Common Land Act before distribution. The order passed by respondent No.2 is illegal. The petitioner Gram Panchayat again filed one more petition bearing CWP No.22749 of 2017 challenging passed by respondent No.2 and the said writ petition was decided on 07.11.2017 and this Court directed the Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala to hear the petitioner as well as all the stakeholders by giving them full opportunity of hearing and then pass a speaking order. Pursuant to the order made by this Court on 09.08.2018, the Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala has passed the impugned order, which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

ARGUMENTS

3. In support of the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjeev K. Virk, vehemently argued that the Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala did not hear the parties and therefore, the impugned order is in contravention of the order dated 07.11.2017 made by this Court. Learned counsel also argued that the petitioner Gram Panchayat has given only 39% out of the total Panchayat land. According to him, the petitioner Gram Panchayat is entitled to 50% share of the land as per the population. He then submitted that there are some unauthorised occupants on the land; some of which has been included in the share of the petitioner Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat should have been given 50% of the land and not 39% as has been done in the impugned order. Learned counsel then argued that the distribution of the land in issue of the popula