In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... (1) R.S.A. No.4331 of 2006 ..... Date of decision:11.3.2008 Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board and another .....Appellants v. Sinderjit Singh and others .....Respondents .... (2) R.S.A. No.4332 of 2006 ..... Gram Panchayat, Ramgarh, Tehsil Barnala .....Appellant v. Sinderjit Singh and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate for the appellants in RSA No. 4331 of 2006 and for respondents No.9 and 10 in RSA No. 4332 of 2006. None for the appellant in RSA No.4332 of 2006. Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. H.S. Gill, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.3 to 8. ..... S.S. Saron, J. (Oral) This order will dispose of RSA No.4331 of 2006 titled Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board and another v. Sinderjit Singh and others and RSA No.4332 of 2006 titled Gram Panchayat, Ramgarh, Tehsil Barnala v. Sinderjit Singh and others as they arise out of the judgment and R.S.A. Nos.4331/2006 etc. [2] decree dated 8.9.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Barnala. The plaintiffs Sinderjit Singh and Balwinder Singh sons of Gurjant Singh had filed a suit for possession in respect of land measuring 17 Kanals 4 Marlas as detailed in the head note of the plaint situated in the revenue estate of Village Ramgarh on the basis of title. A consequential relief of mandatory injunction was prayed to the effect that the defendants be directed to remove the platform/constructions illegally raised/constructed by the Market Committee, Bhadaur (defendant No.9) and also consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the land. The Gram Panchayat, Ramgarh (defendant No.7) approached the plaintiffs and represented that a Purchase Centre for agriculture produce has been sanctioned for Village Ramgarh. It was stated that the land was required for setting-up the said Purchase Centre. The Gram Panchayat (defendant No.7) represented that land measuring 38 Kanals, which was situated in the revenue limits of Ramgarh, was away from the village and was not suitable for setting-up the said Purchase Centre and that the land measuring 17 Kanals 4 Marlas owned by the plaintiffs was more suitable for setting-up the Purchase Centre. The Gram Panchayat (defendant No.7) offered to give land measuring 38 Kanals to the plaintiffs in exchange of the land measuring 17 Kanals 4 Marlas by obtaining sanction of the Government. The plaintiffs believing and trusting the representation of the Gram Panchayat (defendant No.7) gave possession of land measuring 17 Kanals 4 Marlas. However, the Gram Panchayat (defendant No.7) failed to deliver the possession of the land measuring 38 Kanals to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed that they are sole owners of the land measuring 17 R.S.A. Nos.4331/2006 etc. [3] Kanals 4 Marlas. The Market Committee, Bhadaur was occupying the land measuring 17 Kanals 4 Marlas owned by the plaintiffs illegally. It had constructed platforms etc. on the land without the consent of the plaintiffs. The construction raised by the Market Committee, Bhadaur (defendant No.9) was liable to be removed and vacant possession of the land given to the plaintiffs. In short the controversy is that the Gram Panchayat (defendant No.7) had agreed to give 38 Kanals of land owned by it to the plaintiffs for release of 17 Kanals 4 Marlas of land of the plaintiffs for the purpose of construction of Market Yard of the Market Committee, Bhadaur. The plaintiffs though gave the possession of their land, however, the Gram Panchayat, Ramgarh (defendant No.7) did not give possession of 38 Kanals of land. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed and the defendants were directed to hand over vacant possession of the land to the plaintiffs within a period of two months. The appeal filed by the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (`Board' – for short) and also the Gram Panchayat, Ramgarh was dismissed by the learned lower appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 8.9.2006. Aggrieved against the same the Board and the Market Committee, Bhadaur have filed RSA No.4331 of 2006 and the Gram Panchayat, Ramgarh has filed RSA No.4332 of 2006. At the time of motion hearing on 23.12.2006, the following order was passed:- “It is, inter-alia, contended that in lieu of the land given by the respondent-plaintiffs to the appellant Board for construction of the Purchase Centre, the Gram Panchayat-respondent No.8 R.S.A. Nos.4331/2006 etc. [4] agreed and is ready and willing to give land measuring same area to the plaintiffs-respondents No.1 and 2, out of the Gram Panchayat land but the possession thereof was not delivered for want of sanction from the State Government. Notice of motion. Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 whereas Mr. Suresh Goel, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the Gram Panchayat-respondent No.8. Meanwhile, status-quo with regard to possession and/or change of nature of the subject property, as it exists today, shall be maintained by the parties. As requested by Mr. Suresh Goyal, learned counsel for the Gram Panchayat, the plaintiffs-respondents No.1 and 2 are permitted to take possession of the Gram Panchayat land, given to them in lieu of the land in dispute, even if there is no formal sanction by the State Government for the aforesaid transfer. Further, respondents No.3 and 4 are also directed to consider the whole matter and if there is no legal impediment in the grant of necessary approval for the transfer of the Gram Panchayat land in favour of respondents No.1 and 2, to grant the same before the adjourned date. Adjourned to 12.2.2007. A copy of this order be given Dasti under the signatures of the Bench Secretary to learned counsel for the appellant, whereas, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 be given a R.S.A. Nos.4331/2006 etc. [5] copy of this order Dasti on payment of usual charges.” Today, when the appeals were taken up for hearing, Mr. H.S. Gill, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has submitted that the State Government has given necessary sanction for transfer of land measuring 38 Kanals owned by the Gram Panchayat, Ramgarh to the plaintiffs-respondents on 16.10.2007. He has referred to the short reply dated 1.11.2007 filed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab, Chandigarh on behalf of respondent No.4. It is stated that the Government has considered the matter and has granted sanction for exchange of land vide order dated 16.10.2007 (Annexure-R.1). A perusal of the order dated 16.10.2007 (Annexure-R.1) shows that the Government has accorded ex-post facto sanction under Section 5 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 to the exchange of `Shamilat' land measuring 38 Kanals of Gram Panchayat, Ramgarh with the land of the plaintiffs measuring 17 Kanals 4 Marlas. Mr. Subhash Ahuja, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that mutation No.6306 for exchange of land has also been sanctioned on 27.11.2007 by the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade. He has placed on record photostat copy of the mutation No.6306 of Village Ramgarh. The suit of the plaintiffs had been decreed as sanction for exchange of the land had not been received. In view of the fact that now the sanction has been issued and the mutation of the land has also been done, the plaintiffs would be owners in possession of land measuring 38 Kanals which was earlier `Shamilat' land and the Board and the Market Committee, Bhadaur shall be owners of the land measuring 17 Kanals 4 Marlas which was earlier owned by the R.S.A. Nos.4331/2006 etc. [6] plaintiffs. In view of the above, the suit of the plaintiffs for possession of land measuring 17 Kanals 4 Marlas is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed and the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below are set aside. The suit of the plaintiffs for possession of land measuring 17 Kanals 4 Marlas is dismissed and the plaintiffs shall be owners of the earlier `Shamilat' land measuring 38 Kanals. March 11, 2008. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes/No