The court held that a Gram Panchayat cannot authorize land exchanges affecting common paths while legal disputes regarding such paths are pending, affirming that such actions are not in public interest.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

Through the instant petition, the petitioners seeks quashing of order (Annexure P-6), as made by the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Govt. of Punjab, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, wherebys, the latter proceeded to accord approval to the resolution dated 21.01.1994 passed by the Gram Panchayat, Bhaini Sidhwan, Tehsil Taran Taran, Block Khadoor Sahib, District Amritsar for exchange of its land, thus with the land of the private respondents, hence for the purpose of path in public interest.

Factual Background

2. After the lawful culmination of the consolidation proceedings in the mohal concerned, in the year 1954, an area measuring 3 kanal 11 marlas was earmarked as common path (rasta-e- aam) for use by the inhabitants of the village. The said land was owned by the Gram Panchayat, as, it became assigned the revenue designation of shamlat deh (Gair Mumkin Rasta).

3. That one Darshan Singh, respondent No. 7 herein, filed a suit for permanent injunction, to the effect, that the defendant-petitioner no. 8 herein, be restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. In the said suit, Darshan Singh pleaded, that he had taken the said land from the respondent-Gram Panchayat thus in exchange and in lieu of his land.

4. Further, it was stated thereins, that the Gram Panchayat, had passed a resolution on 25.01.1977, to the effect that an exchange had taken place qua the suit land, and, thereby the plaintiffs are using the suit land, as, taken by them in exchange with the land of the Gram Panchayat.

5. The abovesaid suit was contested by defendant-petitioner No. 8, by way of a filing written statement, whereins, it was pleaded that the plaintiff Darshan Singh, is not the owner of the said property and that the respondent-Gram Panchayat, rather was not competent, to allow an exchange of the Rasta-e-aam, thus with the land of the said Darshan Singh.

6. During the pendency of the abovesaid suit, petitioners No. 1 to 3 moved an application before the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Tarn Taran, under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC, for theirs being impleaded as parties in the suit, as the applicants owned land in the vicinity of the land owned by plaintiff besides on the plea that the passage in dispute, whereover, the plaintiff in the suit claimed ownership, given the same being the only passage for theirs accessing their land, thus thereby they are required to be impleaded as such in the suit (supra).

7. However, relief on the aforesaid application filed by petitioners No. 1 to 3, became declined by the learned trial Court. Feeling aggrieved, the applicants-petitioners No. 1 to 3 filed there against Civil Revision before this Hon'ble Court, which was allowed and the parties were directed to appear before the learned trial Court.

8. That yet no further proceedings have been held before the trial Court, at Tarn Taran, thus in the abovesaid suit, as filed by Darshan Singh (respondent No. 7) whereby he claimed relief for rendition of a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction qua the suit path.

9. That one Gurmej Singh (respondent No. 4), had filed a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter for short called as the 'Consolidation Act, 1948') before the Authority concerned, challenging the validity of the earmarking of a common path, thus during the consolidation proceedings. The said petition was disposed of with certain directions. The relevant part of the order is extracted hereinafter.

" Under these circumstances, I find that spot inspection is necessary for the change of path as proposed by the petitioner and in accordance with mutation No. 598. Therefore, this petition is accepted and the case is remanded to the consolidation Officer with the direction that as per mutation No. 500, the changed path should be implemented in the record and it should be kept in mind that no party shoul