LPA No. 69 of 2005 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No. 69 of 2005 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.02.2010 Khazan Singh and others ....Appellants. Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh Present: Mr. V.K. Jindal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. M.S. Sindhu, Addl. A.G., Haryana for the State. Mr. A.K. Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashish Chopra, Advocate and Ms. Shivani Sehgal, Advocate. ... Alok Singh, J. 1. In the present appeal, order under challenge is dated 13.1.2005 passed by the learned single Judge thereby dismissing the writ petition challenging permission to exchange the land. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Gram Panchayat had passed a resolution dated 29.6.1991 whereby it resolved to exchange its 139 Bighas 12 Biswas of land with the land of M/s. Viklpa Agro Industries and other sister concerns. Necessary approval was accorded to the Gram Panchayat vide order dated 31.12.1992/2.1.1992 (Annexure R-1) under Rule 5 of the LPA No. 69 of 2005 2 Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964. While granting permission, certain conditions which were considered essential, were imposed. Accordingly, the land measuring 75 Bighas was exchanged with the land belonging to respondents No.3 to 8 and mutation was sanctioned on 27.3.1992. However, certain residents of the village filed civil suit in the Court of Additional Senior Sub Judge, Gurgaon, seeking cancellation of the exchange order dated 31.12.1992. Status quo was directed to be maitained vide order dated 16.2.1993. However, later on the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon vide order dated 22.2.1993 vacated the status quo order. The aforesaid order vacating status quo was challenged in CWP No.3511 of 1994. However, the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 3.3.1994 cancelled the permission according sanction to exchange the land against which LPA No.239 of 1994 was filed, which was disposed of vide order dated 16.2.1996, remitting the matter of exchange for re-consideration and according approval, if any, after strict complaince of the rule. 3. During the pendency of the appeal before this Court, Gram Panchayat passed fresh resolution dated 25.10.1994, whereby it resolved to sell the land in open auction and to exchange the same with the land belonging to respondents No.3 to 8. Again the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution dated 30.5.1997, cancelling earlier resolution dated 25.10.1994 and reviving the resolution dated 29.6.1991. Conseqeuntly, the Gram Panchayat again agreed to exchange land with the land belonging to respondents No.3 to 8, copy of which was forwarded to the Government for according necessary approval. Sanction was accorded vide order dated 15.9.1997. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. LPA No. 69 of 2005 3 5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that Gram Panchayat acted in haste and with malafide intention. He further argued that while passing the resolution to exchange the land, interest of inhabitants of the village was not kept in mind and hence, it is the outcome of malafide intention, which deserves to be quashed. 6. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition, has observed as under:- “From the chronological events and from the aforequoted observations made by the authorities concerned, conclusion can only be drawn that time and agains the authorities at different levels have come to the conclusion that exchange of the Gram Panchayat land with the land belonging to respondents No.3 to 8 would be for the benefit and in the interest of the inhabitants of the village. It has also been found that with the development of colony by respondents No.3 to 8, the scattered pieces of land of the Gram Panchayat yave been surrounded by the land belonging to these respondents. In such a situation, prohibiting the Gram Panchayat from going ahead with the exchange would only put the inhabitants of the village at great loss. The requirements of Rule 5 of the Rules have amply been made good by the concerned authorities. Moreover, it has been brought to the notice of the Court that a substantial portion of the land which was received by the Gram Panchayat in exchange, stands acquired by the Government and the award in respect thereof was pronounced on 6.9.2000. In such a situation, it would not be possible to put the clock back.” LPA No. 69 of 2005 4 7. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any mistake or error in the judgement passed by the learned Single Judge. He argued that paramount consideration before the Gram Panchayat and the government before permitting the exchange, should have been the interest of the inhabitants of the village, which was not taken into consideration. It is also proved from the record that decision/resolution of the Gram Panchayat was examined by different authorities and none of the authorities had any mallice against the petitioners – appellants. None of the authorities was said to be in collusion with the respondents with whom the land was ultimately exchanged by the Gram Panchayat. 8. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge 05.02.2010 sk.