Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
SURESHWAR THAKUR, VIKAS SURI
Gurjeet Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sureshwar Thakur, J.
Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner herein prays for the hereinafter extracted reliefs.
"Civil Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari/Mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondent authorities in proceeding to sell the prime shamlat land of the Respondent Gram Panchayat measuring 46 kanals 7 marlas (43-18 marlas gair mumkin Drain, 0-9 marlas Gair Mumkin Rasta and 2-0 as Abhi), to a private colonizer/developer, as illegal, arbitrary, malafide, motivated and in contravention of Rule 12-A of the Punjab Vdlage Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 ; and for quashing order Annexure P-6 (dated 16.02.2017).
Further for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondent authorities and the Respondent Gram Panchayat from selling the aforesaid land to respondent No. 4 - private company/colonizer and further restraining the respondent No. 4 from carrying out any work in the disputed area during the pendency of the writ petition.
Factual Backdrop of the case.
2. The Gram Pan
The discretionary power of the State Government to sell non-cultivable land to inhabitants of the village, as per Section 12(4) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Rules, 1964, is not to....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the exchange of land must be for the benefit of the village inhabitants and in accordance with statutory provisions of law.
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 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 concept of co-sharer cannot be used to claim consideration for land allotment under unauthorized occupation, and occupation exceeding the limit specified in Rule 12(4) is not entitled to regulari....
The court emphasized the need for local authorities' input in land allotment decisions to ensure compliance with community needs and statutory obligations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
