IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sureshwar Thakur, Kuldeep Tiwari, JJ.
Daljit Kaur - Petitioner - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and Others - Respondents - Respondent
CWP-1348 of 2023
Decided On : 23-01-2023
Conflict of Interest - Land Encroachments - The court found that the Sarpanch, who was accused of encroaching on Panchayat land, did not have a conflict of interest in filing a petition under Section 7 of The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as the encroachments were not made at his instance. The court directed the completion of demarcation proceedings and the institution of a petition against all encroachers.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner alleged encroachments on Panchayat land, contending that the Sarpanch was one of the encroachers and thus had a conflict of interest in filing a petition under Section 7 of The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Sarpanch did not have a conflict of interest as the encroachments were not made at his instance. The court directed the completion of demarcation proceedings and the institution of a petition against all encroachers.
Issues: Alleged encroachments on Panchayat land, conflict of interest in filing a petition under Section 7 of The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.
Ratio Decidendi: The Sarpanch did not have a conflict of interest in filing a petition under Section 7 of The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as the encroachments were not made at his instance.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the case accordingly, directing the completion of demarcation proceedings and the institution of a petition against all encroachers.
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.
1. The grievance(s) raised in the instant writ petition, is that, there are encroachments made on several tracts of land, which are owned by the Panchayat Deh concerned. The said encroachments are contended to be made at the instance of the encroachers concerned.
2. One of the encroachers, upon the Panchayat Deh land, is averred to be co-respondent No.7, who is also the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Village Boharpur, Block Sanour, Tehsil and District Patiala.
3. The learned State counsel, on instructions given to her, by Mr. Lakhwinder Singh, Panchayat Secretary, BDPO Sanour submits, that the above Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat concerned, has after completion, of demarcation proceedings in respect of certain tracts of land, owned by the Panchayat Deh concerned, and, whereons encroachments became detected, hence instituted a petition under Section 7 of The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) before the learned Collector concerned. The above statement, at the bar by the learned State counsel, becomes the base of the grievance reared, by the petitioner herein, inasmuch as, he submits that one of the encroachers, upon the land owned by the Panchayat Deh concerned, is also one Komal Manjeet Singh, Sarpanch of the Panchayat concerned. Therefore, the said petition under Section 7 of the Act, was mis-constituted, as given his being one of the encroachers, upon the Panchayat Deh land concerned, thereupon he was incapacitated to maintain the petition, on behalf of the Panchayat Deh concerned. The above argument is rested on the principle, that since co-respondent No.7, the petitioner, in the petition under Section 7 of the Act, has a conflict of interest in respect of the grievance reared against the encroachers concerned, in the petition (supra), therefore, he could not be validly authorized to institute a valid petition under Section 7 of the Act, before the learned Collector concerned.
4. The above made argument, does not appeal, to the judicial conscience, of this Court, given the learned State counsel apprising this Court, that, qua the tracts of land, owned by the Panchayat Deh concerned,, in respect whereof, a petition under Section 7 of the Act has been instituted against the encroachers concerned, rather the co-respondent No.7 (supra) is not one of the encroachers. Therefore, the petition instituted under Section 7 of the Act, in respect of those tracts of land owned by the Panchayat Deh concerned, whereons no encroachment is made, at the instance of co-respondent No.7 Komal Manjeet Singh, thus renders the petition (supra), instituted by the said Sarpanch to be well constituted, as, in petition (supra), it cannot be said that he had any conflict of interest with the thereins land of the Panchayat Deh concerned.
5. Moreover, since it is further submitted before this Court, that certain demarcations in respect of other tracts of land, as, owned by the Panchayat Deh concerned, are yet to be conducted, therefore, if after completion of demarcations in respect of other tracts of land, owned by the Panchayat Deh concerned, it becomes unearthed, that the above Sarpanch Komal Manjeet Singh, is also an encroacher thereons, thereupon, the Panchayat concerned, shall make a resolution, whereby it shall not authorize the above Sarpanch, to institute a petition under Section 7 of the Act, but shall authorize some other Panch to institute petition supra.
6. The said demarcation be ensured to be completed within three weeks from today, and, most promptly thereafter a petition under Section 7 of the Act shall be instituted against all the encroachers, upon the Panchayat Deh land concerned, before the Competent Statutory Officer.
7. Disposed of accordingly.
Order accordingly.
Conflict of interest in filing a petition under Section 7 of The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.
The Gram Panchayat must take action against unauthorized encroachments on village common lands, as per Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.
The court ruled that an eviction petition under the Punjab Village Common Lands Act must be converted into a title suit for valid jurisdiction, invalidating subsequent orders if not.
The necessity of a valid demarcation report is crucial for establishing claims of encroachment on common land under the Punjab Village Common Lands Act.
Lack of authorization by the Gram Panchayat or the State Government rendered the application under Section 7(1) of the Act of 1961 not maintainable.
Jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Act requires the petition to be filed by a Panch or an authorized officer, and a misconstituted petition by a private person does not confer jurisdiction to the Co....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.