C.W.P. No.819 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.819 of 1992 Date of Decision : 27.04.2011 Gurmail Singh …Petitioner Versus District Development and Panchayat Officer and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI -.- Present: Mr. Amandeep Saini, Advocate for Mr. Madan Lal Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. V.K. Hundal, Advocate for the respondent No.2. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed challenging the initiation of proceedings under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’). The allegation is that the respondent No.2-Gram Panchayat moved an application under Section 11 of the Act, however, the said act was amended by Amending Act No.25 of 1993 wherein a right has been reserved that the Gram panchayat, if so C.W.P. No.819 of 1992 -2- chooses, may again file application and before that amendment any such application would not lie. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers me a judgment dated 19.11.2010 passed in C.W.P. No.2251 of 1990 wherein this Court has relied upon the judgment dated 05.07.2010 passed in C.W.P. No. 1786 of 1985 which held as follows:- “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.” Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 however argues that the petitioner may be a right-holder of Village Bhatnura Lubana and even of there had occurred some shortage in the repartition proceedings but the consolidation authorities without hearing the respondent No.2 which is the Gram Panchayat of Village Bhatnura Kalan had made up their shortfall from the land of Bhatnura Kalan whereas at best it could have been made up from the Bachat land of the village Bhatnura Lubana. She further states that in equity the C.W.P. No.819 of 1992 -3- order should be maintained. In my considered opinion, once this Court has taken the view that such an application at the instance of the respondent No.2- Gram Panchayat prior to the amendment pointed out above does not lie it would not be able to uphold the proceedings or order. However, liberty may be granted to the Gram Panchayat to file fresh application. It would take all pleas available at this stage after impleading the Village Bhatnura Lubana as a party. In the circumstances, this petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated under Section 11 of the Act are set aside with liberty to the respondent No.2 to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the principle laid down above. ( AJAY TEWARI ) April 27, 2011 JUDGE ashish