A public interest litigation challenging the disposal of Gram Panchayat land cannot be entertained when the transaction was approved by competent authorities for public benefit, the petitioner failed to exhaust the statutory appellate remedy under the 1961 Act, and the petition suffers from significant delay and laches.

SANJIV BERRY, J.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India had been filed by the petitioner in the form of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the inquiry report dated 08.08.2018 (Annexure P-20) as well as the resolution (Annexure P3-A), lease deed dated 14.12.1999 (Annexure P-4) order passed by Director Panchayat Haryana dated 04.06.2003 whereby the land is approved for sale deed, Sale deed dated 16.06.2003 (Annexure P-7), Sale Deed dated 21.06.2005 (Annexrue 7-A), order passed by Assistant Collector Ist Class dated 01.04.2008 (Annexure P-8) and order passed by Deputy Commissioner Gurgaon dated 22.06.2009 (Annexure P-9) and license issued by Country Town and Planning dated 07.10.2017 (Annexure P-11), claiming the same to be in violation of the provisions contained in The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961( hereinafter refereed to ‘the Act of 1961’) and the Rules framed thereunder.

In nutshell it is the contentions of the petitioner claiming himself to be a public spirited person that respondent No.6 M/s Janta Filling Station, Sikanderpur Ghosi, Gurugram, a petrol pump of Indian Oil Corporation which was earlier situated at Haili Mandi, was later relocated. On 02.07.1999 Gram Panchayat, Sikanderpur Ghosi by passing resolution, leased out 3000 sq. Yards in Khasra No.420 for a period of 20 years for resettlement of the petrol pump. The Director Panchayat approved leasing of 3000 sq. yards of land in part of khasra No. 420 belonging to Gram Panchayat on rent of ₹40,000/- per acre per year and subsequently, Gram Panchayat registered lease deed in favour of Indian Oil Corporation vide lease deed dated 14.12.1999 (Annexure P-4).

Thereafter, vide another resolution dated 17.06.2003, the Gram Panchayat also resolved to sell the land to M/s Janta Filling Station (Annexure P3-A). Subsequently, the Director, Panchayat, Haryana vide order dated 04.06.2003 approved, the sale of land measuring 3000 sq. yards, which is shamlat land of Gram Panchayat, Sikanderpur to respondent No.6 vide Annexure P-6, and thereafter the sale deed was accordingly executed on 16.06.2003 (Annexure P-7). The validity of sale of land by Gram Panchayat to Janta Filling Station-respondent No.6 was upheld by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade vide order dated 01.04.2008 (Annexure P-8), which was not challenged before the Collector or any other competent Court. It is averred that Deputy Commissioner, Gurugram in his letter sent to the Director, Panchayats, Haryana dated 22.06.2009 (Annexure P-9) also upheld the decision of Assistant Collector Ist Grade.

It is averred that these transactions have been carried out in utter violation of Provisions contained in the Act of 1961. Since the partners of respondent No.6 were not residents of the village and the sale of land was not for the benefit of the Panchayat and is liable to be set-aside. The petitioner, hence sought issuance of writ as prayed for.

Upon notice, the respondents contested the claim of the petitioner by filing respective replies, denying the averments made therein as incorrect and contending that the proceedings have been carried out in accordance with provisions of law, the partners or respondent No.6 are residents of the village and sale was for the benefit of the Panchayat as the amount of sale consideration has been utilized for carrying out development work of panchayat. It was further submitted that the sale consideration was three times prevailing the market value of the land and was equal to commercial value prevailing at that time and the entire amount of the sale consideration has been utilized for the benefit of the inhabitants of the village by the Gram Panchayat, and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It has been inter alia contended by learned counsel representing the petitioner that the petitioner by way of instant petitio