2023 Supreme(P&H) 991
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sureshwar Thakur, Kuldeep Tiwari, JJ.
Ravinder and others - Petitioners - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and others - Respondents - Respondent
CWP No. 24136 of 2016
Decided On : 23-03-2023
Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioners (in CWP-24136-2016, CWP-2200-2017 and CWP-25367-2016).
Mr. Balraj Singh Rathee, Advocate for the petitioners (in CWP-7961-2018 & CWP-15496-2022).
Mr. Vijay Deep Rathee, Advocate for the petitioners (in CWP-16156-2022).
Mr. Pardeep Prakash Chahar, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. B.S.Bedi, Advocate and Mr. Simar Bedi, Advocate for respondent No. 4 (in CWP-24136-2016 & CWP-2200-2017) and for respondent No. 5 (in CWP-25367-2016).
Ms. Vasundhra Asija, Advocate for Mr. P.S.Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No. 2 (in CWP-16156-2022).
The proviso to sub-Rule 4 of Rule 8 of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, only exempts certain groups from charges for using manure pits and does not grant the Gram Panchayat the authority to allot land reserved as gada khad to specific groups.
Headnote:
Proviso - Land Allotment - The court rejected the contention that the Gram Panchayat had the privilege to allot land reserved as gada khad to specific groups, emphasizing that the proviso only exempted certain groups from charges for using manure pits, and did not grant the Panchayat the authority to carve plots from gair mumkin gada khad for allotment.
Fact of the Case:
The court considered multiple writ petitions arising from common impugned orders related to the allotment of land. The contested resolution referred to the allotment of lands described as gada khad, which was disapproved by the competent authority as falling within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation, Sonepat.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the contention regarding the privilege of the Gram Panchayat to allot land reserved as gada khad to specific groups was devoid of merit and rejected it. Consequently, the court dismissed all the petitions and maintained the impugned orders.
Issues: The main issue was the interpretation of the proviso to sub-Rule 4 of Rule 8 of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, and whether it granted the Gram Panchayat the authority to allot land reserved as gada khad to specific groups.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the relevant rule, emphasizing that the proviso only exempted certain groups from charges for using manure pits and did not grant the Panchayat the authority to carve plots from gair mumkin gada khad for allotment.
Final Decision: The court dismissed all the petitions and maintained the impugned orders, as well as denied the requested relief in other related petitions.
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.
1. Since all the writ petitions emerge from common theretos impugned orders, therefore all the writ petitions are amenable for being decided through a common order.
2. For the sake of brevity, the facts, which are necessary for deciding the above mentioned writ petitions, are being taken from CWP-24136-2016.
3. The contested resolution is appended as Annexure P-1 to CWP No. 24136 of 2016. The said resolution was drawn on 12.8.2014. In an annexure appended therewith, there is a reference of gada khad and plot etc. carrying a dimension of 495 kanals and 16 marlas. Moreover, there is also a further reference thereins, that a gair mumkin gada and banjar qadim land occurring in an expanse of 516 kanals and 07 marlas. Moreover, the resolution speaks about approval being made for allotments of lands described, as gada khad, to the allottees concerned.
4. The said resolution was forwarded to the competent authority concerned. However, at the time, when the competent authority received Annexure P-1 for approval, then the petition lands evidently fell within the jurisdiction of Municipal Corporation, Sonepat. Moreover, the competent authority through the drawings of Annexure P-4 on 3.3.2016, disapproved the resolution of the Panchayat concerned.
Submissions of the learned counsels for the petitioners
5. The learned counsels for the petitioners, have most vigorously contended before this Court, that in terms of the proviso to sub-Rule 4 of Rule 8 of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, rule whereof extracted hereinafter, hence a privilege becomes bestowed, upon the Gram Panchayat concerned, to allot the land reserved as a gada khad, to the members of scheduled castes or backward classes or any landless labourers or tenant. Therefore, they argue, that the impugned orders are infirm, and, are required to be set aside, as they are made on a misinterpretation of proviso (supra), as occurs at the end of the Rule 8 (supra).
(4) The Panchayat may if necessary, earmark suitable land for use as manure pits by the inhabitants of the village on such nominal charges as may be fixed by it;
Provided that the Panchayat may exempt a member of Scheduled Castes or Backward Classes or any landless labourer or tenant on the ground of poverty from the payment of such charges.from the payment of such charges.
Analysis of the above submission and its rejection
6. However, the above made submission is completely devoid of any merit, and, is rejected. The reason for making the above conclusion, is rested, upon a complete reading of the above extracted rule. A keen reading of the said rule reveals, that the shamilat deh lands are permissible to become utilized by the Panchayat, through a resolution in writing, but only for (a) grazing purposes, (b) collecting dry fire-wood from the jungle on terms laid down by the Panchayat (c) open spaces near the Abadi deh may, with the previous permission of the Panchayat and in the manner laid down by it, be utilized by the inhabitants of the village for threshing the harvests, (d) the Panchayat concerned, if necessary, may earmark suitable land for use as manure pits by the inhabitants of the village on such nominal charges as may be fixed by it. However, the proviso underneath sub-Rule (4), empowers the Gram Panchayat concerned, to exempt a member of the scheduled caste or backward class or any landless labourer or tenant but only on the ground of poverty. However, the exemption assigned in the proviso underneath sub-Rule (4) of Rule 8, is restricted only in respect of the charges, which are otherwise leviable qua user of the designated manure pits by the Gram Panchayat concerned. Resultantly, the meaning of the proviso, is but none other than the above, and, obviously cannot lead to any interpretation, that it yet assigns any leverage or privilege in the Gram Panchayat concerned, to even carve plots from gair mumkin gada khad, and, to thereafter make resolution for allotments thereof, in pu