C.W.P.No. 6980 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No. 6980 of 2010 Date of decision: 14.3.2011 Balbir Kumar and another .........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .........Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. A.S.Manaise, Advocate, for the petitioner Mrs Madhu Dayal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.1 Mr. A.S.Virk, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. Mr. Ashwani K. Chopra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Harminder Singh, Advocate for respondents No. 4 to 9. RANJAN GOGOI, CJ. : (Oral) This writ petition has been filed seeking interference with the resolution dated 6.10.2009 (Annexure P-7) and the order dated 16.10.2009 (Annexure P-8) by which transfer of panchayat's land in villages Darapur and Saidowal Khurd has been recommended in favour of respondents No.4 to 9 who belongs to another village i.e.Chak Abdalwari. To shorten the litigation we have asked the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur to inform us the market value of the two parcels of the land in order to determine whether the said transfer/exchange is contrary to the public interest. Pursuant thereto, the Deputy Commissioner C.W.P.No. 6980 of 2010 2 has filed an affidavit wherein he has stated that for the purpose of stamp duty and registration fee the rate which is fixed in District Gurdaspur at the relevant time in respect of the villages involved were Rs.4,25,000/-, Rs. 4,00,000/- and Rs. 4,00,000/- respectively. The Deputy Commissioner has further stated that the land in villages Saidowal Khurd, Darapur and Chak Abdalwari are of similar nature, same value and the market value of the land in all the three villages could be taken as Rs. 8,07,840/- per acre. We have further verified that the exchange of land in the present case was more or less of an equivalent area i.e. 81 Kanals. If the value of the land in three villages is the same as reported by the Deputy Commissioner and the exchange is for an equal area of land, we do not see how writ petition can justify any order granting any of the reliefs prayed for. The writ petition is, therefore, found without any merit. It is, therefore, dismissed, however, without any costs. (RANJAN GOGOI) CHIEF JUSTICE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE March 14, 2011 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? _____