SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(P&H) 822

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rajan Gupta, Karamjit Singh, JJ.
Mohinder Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab & Ors. - Respondents
CWP -22604-2020 (O&M)
Decided On : 25-02-2021

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate, for the Appellant, Ms. Anu Chatrath, Addl. AG, Punjab, for the Respondent.

The exchange of lands must comply with the mandatory provisions of Rule 5 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, including obtaining prior approval of the Government.

Headnote:

Exchange of Land - Gram Panchayat - The court held that the exchange of lands between the petitioner's father and the Gram Panchayat was in complete violation of the mandatory provisions of Rule 5 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, as prior approval of the Government for the exchange was not obtained. Therefore, the exchange of lands had no legal sanctity, and the petitioner was entitled to take back his land from the Gram Panchayat.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought mandamus to approve writings/resolutions for the exchange of land or to direct the Gram Panchayat to hand over the land. The Gram Panchayat intended to dispossess the petitioner from the exchanged land.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the exchange of lands between the petitioner's father and the Gram Panchayat was in violation of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1964 as prior approval of the Government was not obtained. As a result, the exchange had no legal sanctity, and the petitioner was entitled to take back his land from the Gram Panchayat.

Issues: Violation of Rule 5 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 and entitlement of the petitioner to take back his land from the Gram Panchayat.

Ratio Decidendi: The exchange of lands between the petitioner's father and the Gram Panchayat was held to be in complete violation of the mandatory provisions of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1964 as prior approval of the Government for the exchange was not obtained.

Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, and the petitioner was entitled to take back his land from the Gram Panchayat.

JUDGMENT

Karamjit Singh, J. - Case has been heard through video conferencing on account of COVID-19 Pandemic.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No.1 and 2 to approve writings/resolutions dated 19.11.1967 (Annexure P-1) and 14.7.1976 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.6-Gram Panchayat with regard to exchange of land and in the alternative, to direct respondent No.6-Gram Panchayat to handover the vacant possession of the land to the petitioner which was given to Gram Panchayat by way of exchange.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that his father Bawa Singh was owner in possession of land bearing Khasra No. 154 (outside Lal Lakeer) and Khasra No.77 (situated in abadi). On 19.11.1967, a writing/resolution (Annexure P-1) was passed by the Gram Panchayat, as per which, Bawa Singh gave 2 Maria of land bearing Khasra No. 154 to Gram Panchayat and in its exchange, Gram Panchayat gave 16 Maria of panchayat land out of Khasra No.6/25 to him. Thereafter, on 14.7.1976, another agreement (Annexure P-2) was executed by Gram Panchayat, as per which, Bawa Singh gave 2 Maria of land to Gram Panchayat and in exchange, he was given 1 Kanal of land out of Khasra No.6/25 by Gram Panchayat. Bawa Singh died in 1993 and thereafter, the petitioner went abroad. Still further, a panchayatnama dated 12.8.2013 (Annexure P-4) was executed between the Sarpanch of the village and the petitioner with regard to the aforesaid exchange of lands. Now, the Gram Panchayat intends to forcibly dispossess the petitioner from the land measuring 1K-16M bearing Khasra No.6/25 which was given to his father by the Gram Panchayat at the time of aforesaid exchange of lands.

4. Ms. Anju Arora, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab who was having advance copy of the petition, appeared on behalf of respondents No.1 to 5. Reply by way of affidavit of Amarjit Singh, Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Kapurthala was filed on behalf of the said respondents in which it was denied that any land belonging to the Gram Panchayat was exchanged with the land of Bawa Singh. Even the execution of writings dated 19.11.1967 (Annexure P-l) and 14.7.1976 (Annexure P-2) was also denied for want of knowledge. It was prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. Rule 5 of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Rules of 1964") reads as follows : -

"Exchange of land [Sections-5 and 15(2) (f) of the Act] A Panchayat, if it is of opinion that it is necessary so to do for the benfit of the inhabitants of the village may with the prior approval of the Government transfer any land in shamilat deh by exchange with the land of an equivalent value."

7. In the present case, the petitioner has relied upon Annexures P-1 and P-2 to show that proper resolutions were passed by Gram Panchayat with regard to exchange of its lands with the lands belonging to Bawa Singh father of the petitioner. As per Rule 5 of Rules of 1964, prior approval of Government is mandatory for exchange of land belonging to Gram Panchayat. However, in the case in hand, no such prior approval of the Government was taken by Gram Panchayat. As such, exchange of panchayat lands dated 19.11.1967 and 14.7.1976 have got no legal sanctity, being in complete violation of the mandatory provisions of Rule 5 of Rules of 1964.

8. In the light of the above, no direction can be issued to respondents No.1 and 2 to approve the writings/ resolutions Annexures P-l and P-2. As no exchange of lands had taken place in the eyes of law, the petitioner being legal heir of Bawa Singh, is entitled to take back his land from Gram Panchayat while the land of Gram Pancahyat must revert back to it if any such exchange of lands had already taken place between the parties.

9. This writ petition is hereby disposed of in light of the aforementioned terms.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top