CWP No.1784 of 1985 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.1784 of 1985 Date of decision:05.07.2010 Bachana ...... Petitioner VERSUS Joint Director, Panchayats, Chandigarh and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA. Present: Ms.Sonia G.Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.C.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab for the respondents no.1 and 2. Mr.M.L.Saini, Advocate for respondent no.3. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA.J (Oral) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 09.02.1983 and 21 12.1984, passed by the Collector (District Development & Panchayat Officer), Patiala and the Joint Director Panchayats (Exercising the powers of Commissioner), Chandigarh. Counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation), Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as originally enacted did not empower a Gram Panchayat to file a petition under Section 11. A Division Bench judgment of this court in Gurnam Singh Versus the District Development Officer (Collector), Patiala and another, 1988 PLJ 497, affirmed this anomaly and set aside the orders passed on the petition filed under Section 11. It was only pursuant to Punjab Act No.25 of 1993, that the right to file a petition under Section 11 of the Act, was conferred upon the Gram Panchayat. CWP No.1784 of 1985 -2- Counsel for the Gram Panchayat submits that a part of the land has been utilised by the State Government for a focal point. It is argued that the Act has been amended and the right to file an application under Section 11 has been conferred upon the Gram Panchayat. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders, the provision of Section 11 of the Act as they stood before the filing of the petition under Section 11 of the Act, after amendment by Punjab Act No.25 of 1993 and the Division Bench judgment of this court referred to above. The Gram Panchayat filed an application under Section 11 of the Act on 16.06.1981. On 16.06.1981, and as held by a Division Bench of this court in Gurnam Singh Versus the District Development Officer (Collector), Patiala and another (supra), such an application was not maintainable at the behest of the Gram Panchayat. A relevant extract from the judgment reads as follows: - “8. After thorough consideration of the matter, we have come to the conclusion that the anomaly, could be removed, if at all, only by striking down the provisions of Section 11 being discriminatory but as there is no challenge to the vires of the said section, it is not open to us to consider this matter in detail and express our opinion thereon. So we have no option but to leave the matter for Government to take necessary steps and remove the anomaly by proper amendment. 9. In view of our finding that the Panchayat has no right to take proceedings under Section 11 of the Act the last part of the order of the Collector wherein a right has been reserved that the Gram Panchayat, if so chooses, may again file application under the Act after getting the ownership question decided under Section 11 of the Act, is quashed. No costs. CWP No.1784 of 1985 -3- In view of the above facts, as the application filed by the Gram Panchayat was not maintainable on 16.06.1981, the impugned orders are without jurisdiction. The writ petition is therefore, allowed, the orders dated 09.02.1983 and 21.12.1984, passed by the Collector (District Development & Panchayat Officer), Patiala and the Joint Director Panchayats (Exercising the powers of Commissioner), Chandigarh, are set aside but with liberty to the Gram Panchayat to file a fresh petition under Section 11 of the Act. 05.07.2010 [RAJIVE BHALLA] shamsher JUDGE