Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 6821

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
,
ZILE SINGH AND ANOTHER – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS – Respondent
/6516/2022

A person whose land is acquired for a public purpose has a valid claim for the acquiring authority to exchange its land with the land acquired.

Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - EXCHANGE OF LAND - GRAM PANCHAYAT - PACCA RASTA - OWNED LAND - VALID CLAIM - EXCHANGE OF LAND - COMPETENT AUTHORITY - RULES - APPLICATION - DECISION - EVICTION ORDER - STAY
Fact of the Case:

The Gram Panchayat raised a pacca rasta on the land belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner claimed that the pacca rasta was raised on Khasra Nos.101 and 102, which were owned and possessed by him.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner had a valid claim for the Gram Panchayat to exchange its land with the land where the pacca rasta had been raised.
Issues: Whether the petitioner had a valid claim for the Gram Panchayat to exchange its land with the land where the pacca rasta had been raised.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner had a valid claim for the Gram Panchayat to exchange its land with the land where the pacca rasta had been raised, as the pacca rasta had been raised on land owned and possessed by the petitioner.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's application for exchange of land within four months and stayed the eviction order till then.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

114

CWP-6516-2022

Date of Decision : January 09, 2023

ZILE SINGH AND ANOTHER

.....Petitioners

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

.....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present :

Mr. A.P.S. Nain, Advocate for

Mr. Ajay Singh Ghanghas, Advocate

for the petitioners.

Mr. Raman Sharma, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

***

SURESHWAR THAKUR,

J.(ORAL)

The Gram Panchayat concerned is averred to raise a pacca

rasta on the land belonging to co-petitioner No.2. The said pacca rasta has

been raised on Khasra Nos.101 and 102.

The learned State counsel does not contest the factum of the

pacca rasta becoming raised on land owned, and, possessed by co-

petitioner No.2. Therefore, the co-petitioner No.2 does appear to be prima

facie nursing a valid claim for the Gram Panchayat concerned, exchanging

its land with the above said land, whereon, a pacca rasta has been raised.

Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction

to the respondents concerned, to on application(s), for exchange(s) of land

being moved before the Competent Authority, but within the four corners of

the relevant rules, hence make the promptest decision(s) thereons but yet

only in accordance with law.

So far as the petitioner No.1 is concerned, by filing status

DEVINDER YADAV

2023.01.11 09:27

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this

order/judgment

CWP-6516-2022

-2-

report, on affidavit, dated 12.10.2022, it has been stated by respondents that

in case the petitioner No.1 files the necessary application, under Rule 12 (4)

of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, as

applicable to the State of Haryana, the same shall be considered in

accordance with law.

If the application(s) for the above purpose have already been

moved, the same shall be decided within four months from today.

For ensuring that the ends of justice are not defeated, it is also

deemed imperative to order that till a decision on the above application(s)

are made by the Competent Authority, thereupto the order of eviction, as

made in respect of the disputed lands, may not be enforced.

(SURESHWAR THAKUR)

JUDGE

(KULDEEP TIWARI)

January 09, 2023

JUDGE

devinder

Whether speaking/reasoned.

Yes/No

Whether Reportable.