C.R. No. 4302 of 2006 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4302 of 2006 Date of Decision : 15.10.2009 Gram Panchayat .......... Petitioner Versus Jaswant Singh & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. ,M.K. Singla Advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 1.6.2006 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Sangrur allowing an application of the respondent / plaintiffs moved under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff / respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from shifting Hadda Rodi from Khatta No. 1980, Khasra Nos. 3432(1-0), 2205(1-10) to Khatta No. 1029/1923 Khasra No. 254/1(9-0) pond, and not to raise any construction or change the nature of the pond situated within the revenue estate of village Ghanuari Kalan. The suit was filed in a representative capacity. The case set up by the plaintiffs was that the site for Hadda C.R. No. 4302 of 2006 2 Rodi was allotted in Khasra No. 3432 and 2205, whereas Khasra No. 254/1 (9-0) is a pond, being used as such. The suit was contested by raising preliminary objection that the suit was not maintainable. It was also the case of the defendant / petitioner that the Gram Panchayat petitioner wants to shift the Hadda Rodi in pursuance to the resolution passed in this regard. The plea that SDM had already passed an order to shift the Hadda Rodi, on the instructions of the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur on the demand of villagers was also pleaded. The learned trial Court dismissed the application by holding that the plaintiff / respondents had suppressed the material facts regarding passing of the resolution by the Gram Panchayat, Ghanuari Kalan for shifting the Hadda Rodi from Khasra Nos. 3432 and 2205 to Khasra No. 254/1. It was also held that the plaintiff / respondents had further concealed the fact regarding request made by the Gram Panchayat to the Deputy Commissioner for shifting the Hadda Rodi from Samadh of Baba Jogi Peer to other place. The learned trial Court further held that the boundary wall had already been raised over Khasra No. 254 for using it as Hadda Rodi. The distance of Khasra No. 254 from the village is three kilometers. The learned trial Court also held that the Gram Panchayat was best judge to deal with the requirements and needs of residents for their welfare. The plaintiff / respondents preferred an appeal. The appeal was accepted by the learned Addl. District Judge, Sangrur by placing reliance on C.R. No. 4302 of 2006 3 Section 18 of the East Punjab Holdings ( Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation ) Act, 1948, which reads as under :- “Section 18- Lands Reserved for common purposes: Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, it shall be lawful for the Consolidation Officer to direct :- a) that any land specifically assigned for any common purpose shall cease to be so assigned and to assign any other land in its place; b) that any land under the bed of a stream or torrent flowing through or from the Shiwalik mountain range within the State shall be assigned for any common purpose, c) that if any area under consolidation no land is reserved for any common purpose including extension of village abadi, or if the land so reserved is inadequate, to assign other land for such purpose.” The learned lower appellate Court held that, without compliance with the provisions of Section 18, it was not permissible for the Gram Panchayat to shift Hadda Rodi and allowed the injunction application. C.R. No. 4302 of 2006 4 The learned lower appellate Court was of the view, that it was only the consolidation authorities, which could change the purpose and not the Gram Panchayat, in view of bar contained under Section 18 of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order, by contending that the Panchayat is fully competent to change the user for which the land is reserved, in the changed circumstances. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it was pleaded and proved on record that decision to shift Hadda Rodi was taken on public demand made to the Deputy Commissioner, by passing resolution further in view of the fact that the land now being used for Hadda Rodi was at a distance of 3 kilometers from the village, which was for the welfare of the residents of the village. In support of this contention the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jagdish Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others 2005(4) RCR ( Civil ) 322, wherein this Court was pleased to lay down as under :- “4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find no merit in the present writ petition in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shish Ram's case ( supra) wherein it has been held that the Gram Panchayat is competent to change the user of the land as fixed at the time of consolidation. In para No. 2 of the writ petition, the petitioner has pleaded that land measuring 622 Kanals 15 Marlas is in the possession of the Gram Panchayat whereas in C.R. No. 4302 of 2006 5 para No. 3 of the writ petition it is pleaded that approximately 99 acres of land was kept reserved for the Gram Panchayat. There is nothing on the record to show that the subject land was reserved for any particular purpose in consolidation proceedings. The Gram Panchayat as owner is competent to use the same in the best possible manner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot insist that the land must be leased for cultivation purpose and cannot be given to the Forest Department for plantation of trees.” On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 18 of the Act does not bar the change of user by the Gram Panchayat as held by the learned lower appellate Court. In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdish Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others ( supra) the impugned order cannot be sustained. This revision is allowed, the order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge is set aside, and that of the learned trial Court is restored but with no order as to costs. 15.10.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE