The main legal point established in the judgment is that the exchange of land must be for the benefit of the village inhabitants and in accordance with statutory provisions of law.

JUDGMENT

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

2. The petitioner being the inhabitant and Sarbrahi Lambardar of village Drari, Tehsil and District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali has come forward to challenge the order dated 9.6.2020/10.6.2020 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.2 whereby approval has been accorded by the Government for the exchange of Shamlat land of village Drari admeasuring 42 Kanals 8 Marias with the land belonging to respondent No.9 admeasuring 42 Kanals 8 Marias, inasmuch as the Shamlat land belonging to Gram Panchayat of village Drari being of very high commercial value as it was abutting the 200 feet wide PR-9 road going towards the Mohali International Airport, whereas the land belonging to respondent No.9 being away from the said road and low lying and prone to flooding was less valuable. The petitioner has also sought direction for quashing the resolutions dated 23.7.2019 (Annexure P-3) and 4.12.2019 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Gram Panchayat of village Drari regarding exchange of aforesaid Shamlat land with the land of respondent No.9. As per the petitioner, the said action of the Gram Panchayat was totally illegal being in violation of Rule 5 of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules 1964 (hereinafter referred as 'the Rules of 1964') and the aforesaid resolutions were passed for extraneous consideration in order to give undue benefit to respondent No.9.

3. On notice of motion, contesting respondents appeared through their respective counsels.

4. Short reply by way affidavit of Ms. Seema Jain, IAS, Financial Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab was filed on behalf of respondent No.2. In the said affidavit, it was specifically stated that the approval for exchange of Panchayat land was granted under Rule 5of the Rules of 1964, after following the prescribed procedure and guidelines. The approval was granted by the Government while taking into consideration the fact that the Collector rate, Market rate and Chhant rate of both the lands under exchange were equal. In the said affidavit, it was further submitted that as per the site inspection report, the land of Gram Panchayat was low lying and includes 15 meters of 'no construction zone' on both sides of the road. The resolutions passed by the Gram Panchayat were self-explanatory. As per the said resolutions the land of the Gram Panchayat which was got bifurcated due to construction of PR-9 road, would now be consolidated as a big chunk of land and thus beneficial for the Gram Panchayat. The respondent No.2 in its affidavit has also challenged the locus standi of the petitioner to file the present writ petition.

5. Respondents No.7 & 8 i.e. Gram Panchayat of the village filed separate written statement on the same lines, justifying the exchange of its land with the land belonging to respondent No.9.

6. Respondent No.9 & 10 filed joint written statement resisting the claim of the petitioner. They have also taken the plea that the petitioner is having no locus standi to challenge the exchange of the land in question, as there was no illegality in the same.

7. We have heard the counsel for the parties.

8. Mr. V.K. Jindal, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the land of the Gram Panchayat is abutting 200 feet wide PR-9 road which leads to International Airport Mohali. The said land is having great commercial potential. The Government has already planned to change the land use from agriculture to industrial zone in the said area along PR-9 road, as is evident from Annexure P-11 which is relating to amendment of Master plan/Zonal plan of S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that on the contrary the land belonging to respondent No.9 which is to be given to the Gram Panchayat in exchange is situated behind half acre to 6 acres from the aforesaid PR-9 road and thus having no commercial potential. The land of the Gram