IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.
Parkash Singh & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CWP NO.21809 of 2015
Decided On : 06-02-2024
JUDGMENT
Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (Oral)
Prayer in the present petition is for setting aside the resolution No.13 dated 12.03.2012 issued by the Municipal Council, Zirakpur District Mohali wherein land measuring 2000 sq. Yards in village Baltana has been sold to respondent No.3 and consequently for setting aside the sale effected dated 29.09.2015, wherein in furtherance of the resolution dated 12.03.2012 (Annexure P-4) the land reserved for the non-proprietors (petitioners) has been sold.
2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are the non-proprietors inhabitants in village Baltana, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar Mohali. He has submitted that consolidation in the village had taken place on 07.12.1985 and in the partition proceedings, land comprised in Khasra No.973, 974, 975 and 978 were reserved for non-proprietors as Abadi plots were situated in the said Khasra numbers. He has submitted that Jamabandi for the year 2012-13 would show that these Khasra numbers are gair mumkin/abadi plots inhabited by the non-proprietors/scheduled castes. It is submitted that vide notification dated 04.08.2000, village Baltana was declared as a transitional area and consequently a Nagar Panchayat was constituted in place of Gram Panchayat and thereafter, in the year 2006 the Nagar Panchayat was declared as Municipal Council, Zirakpur. He has submitted that the petitioners have been living in the said area for many generations and almost 40 to 50 houses were situated in the aforesaid Khasra numbers. It is submitted that Municipal Council, Zirakpur passed a resolution dated 12.03.2012, wherein, it was resolved that land measuring 2000 sq. yards in village Baltana and 5000 sq. yards Dialpura would be provided to respondent No.3 for setting up of Sub Station in Baltana. He submits that sale deed was got executed by the Municipal Council, Zirakpur in favour of respondent No.3 for the land which was reserved for the petitioners at the time of consolidation. It is submitted that the respondents are trying to take possession of the said land forcibly and some houses belonging to the non-proprietors were also demolished. It is submitted that resolution dated 12.03.2012 and registered sale deed dated 29.09.2015 were executed illegally as the same are without any jurisdiction and against the settled principles of law. It is further submitted that after merger of village in Municipal Council, Zirakpur, Shamlat land of the village had not vested in the Municipal Council, Zirakpur. He submits that in view of the provisions of Section 56 of the Punjab Municipal Act, Municipal Council had no power whatsoever to transfer the same in favour of respondent No.3. He submits that the land reserved for the petitioners/non-proprietors, which was initially Shamlat land, does not vest in the Municipal Council and hence, Municipal Council had no right to alienate them. It is submitted that the petitioners were not granted any opportunity before taking any decision. He further submits that the necessary sanction from the State Government was also not obtained by the Municipal Council, Zirakpur. He submits that in these circumstances, the resolution dated 12.03.2012 and the sale deed dated 29.09.2015, being unsustainable in the eyes of law, deserves to be set aside.
3. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Saurabh Singla, Advocate for respondent No.2 i.e. Municipal Council, Zirakpur has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. He has submitted that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands and the present petition has been filed with a clandestine motive. He submits that the land falling in Khasra No.978 was reserved as Gair Mumkin during consolidation. He submits that the petitioners are residing in Khasra No.978 for last many years. He submits that total area of Khasra No.978 is 4750 sq. yards approximately and out of this area, the petitioners constructed their houses in
Writ jurisdiction is not suitable for resolving disputed questions of fact; such matters should be addressed in Civil Court.
Inaction within the prescribed period led to the lapse of the reservation, and the illegal inclusion of lands in the Development Plan led to the quashing of the acquisition proceedings.
The court affirmed the authority of the Gram Panchayat to auction disputed land, ruling that the petitioner's claims of ownership were undermined by his own leasing actions and lack of evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that Section 42A of the 1948 Act does not divest the proprietary body of its title to the land reserved for common purposes, and the compensation f....
The authority to alienate municipal land must comply with statutory provisions; resolutions made in violation of such authority are legally unenforceable. The suit was time-barred, highlighting signi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Appellate Authority to consider all relevant documents and arguments before making a decision.
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.