Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 2106
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, JJ.
Gram Panchayat Hardosaran – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondent
LPA NO. 906 of 2020 (O&M)
Decided On : 28-02-2023
Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate; For the Appellant
For the Respondent: Mr. V.M. Gupta, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
Headnote:(A) Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 - Alternative remedies - Writ petition dismissed for failing to pursue alternate statutory remedies regarding mutation dispute with the Forest Department - The learned Single Judge determined that the Gram Panchayat did not provide sufficient grounds to bypass lower authority processes. (Paras 2-8)
(B) Writ jurisdiction - Established principles dictate that where efficacious alternative remedies exist, the Writ Court would refrain from adjudication - Complexity of factual disputes necessitates resolution before a statutory authority. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
The Gram Panchayat challenged the correction of mutations favoring the Forest Department and argued that the land was not part of a declared forest area, referring to previous judgments that supported the State's position.
Findings of Court:
The appeal was dismissed as the Gram Panchayat was directed to pursue available legal channels for resolving the mutation dispute.
Issues: The core issue was whether the Gram Panchayat had a valid claim over the disputed land versus the rights of the Forest Department, and the appropriateness of the writ remedy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the necessity of exhausting alternative remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction, emphasizing that factual disputes should be resolved in the appropriate forum rather than in a writ petition.
Result: Present appeal stands dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. issues surrounding land ownership and mutations (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. challenge to mutation on grounds of incorrect documentation (Para 5) |
| 3. principle of alternative remedy in writ jurisdiction (Para 6) |
| 4. relegation to statutory authority for resolution (Para 7) |
| 5. dismissal of appeal (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT
G.S. Sandhawalia, J. (Oral)
The present appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 30.09.2020 passed in CWP-15227-2020 titled Gram Panchayat Hardosaran v. State of Punjab & others wherein the writ petition was disposed of by relegating the Gram Panchayat to the alternative remedies. The challenge in the writ petition was to the order dated 01.07.2020 by the Forest Division Officer, Pathankot wherein mutations were directed to be corrected in favour of the Forest Department.
2. The learned Single Judge noticed that there was remedy of filing petition under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short, the 'Act') claiming right, title and interest in land and there was a provision to file an appeal against the order passed. It was also noticed that regarding the change of mutation under Chapter IV of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 and under Section 36 of the said Act, the procedure is prescribed for determining the dispute with respect to mutation which had been enumerated and once the order is passed sanctioning mutation, there is a provision for filing an appeal thereafter. It was accordingly noticed that it is the case of the Gram Panchayat that it was not covered by the notification dated 05.01.1904 whereby the land measuring 27550 acres was declared as forest area.
3. It was also further noticed that in two other litigation's, the said issue had been decided in favour of the State that the entries in the revenue record of mutation in favour of the Forest Department was correctly done. Reference was made to CWP-8706-1988 titled Rameshwar Nath and others v. State of Punjab and others decided on 11.02.2014 (Annexure P-5), perusal of which would go on to show that it was pertaining to Village Tikka Dhung, Tehsil Pathankot District Gurdaspur.
4. It is further pointed out that in similar case in Divisional Forest Office, Gurdaspur & others v. Gian Singh & others, 2015 (2) RCR (Civil) 346, the matter was also decided in favour of the Forest Department and the learned Single Judge of this Court had set aside the findings recorded by the Courts below by noticing that under forest settlement reports, trees and forest produce vest in the State Government since times immemorial and is a natural resource and public property.
5. Mr.Manhas has argued that as per the said notification, Village Hardosaran has not been mentioned therein and therefore, as per the communication dated 11.09.2020 (Annexure P-12) which was a letter written by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Dhar Kalan to the Tehsildar the mutation had been entered wrongly on 04.09.2020 by the Patwari Halqa of the land measuring 1043 kanals 13 marlas pertaining to the said village.
6. It is settled principle that where there is an alternative and efficacious remedy available and where disputed questions are raised, the Writ Court would not go to the said issue. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon & others(2010) 8 SCC 110. The principles laid down read as under:-
"30. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty-bound to consider whether:
(a) adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved;
(b) the petition reveals all material facts;
(c) the petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute;
(d)person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches;
(e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitation;
(f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by
