RSA 1821 of 1980 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 5077-C of 1999 and RSA No. 1821 of 1980 Date of Decision: November 26, 2009 Bhanga and Lekha Singh(both deceased through LRs) ...... Appellants Versus Gram Sabha, Razipura Jhajar, Tehsil and Distt. Ambala ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Kuldeep S.Chander, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Vivek Lamba, AAG, Haryana. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. CM No. 5077-C of 1999 For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions. In place of Gram Sabha, Pinjore, Municipal Committee, Pinjore is impleaded as respondent No.1. In view of the orders of this Court dated 23.12.2008, State of Haryana, through the Commissioner & Secretary, Local Bodies, Haryana has been impleaded as respondent No.2. Registry to make necessary correction in the memo of parties. RSA 1821 of 1980 2 RSA No. 1821 of 1980 This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellants for a declaration that they were entitled to the compensation for the common land of village Tekwana since the entire village along with the abadi deh had been acquired. It was the case of the appellants that in those circumstances since there was neither any beneficiary nor any Gram Panchayat in existence the compensation would have to be handed out to the proprietors of the village. The courts below on a discussion of an alternative plea raised on the basis of land being 'Hilly Area' negatived the case of the appellants. However, the argument that since the entire village had been acquired it was only the proprietors who could lay claim to the compensation has not been considered by the courts below. The following questions have been proposed:- i) That Shamlat land of village Takuana being Banjar Qadim and Ghair Mumkin and entered in the name of Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat and in their possession the land could not vest in the Gram Panchayat. ii)That when all the lands of village Takuana including shamlat land had been acquired by the State Government and all the villagers had left the village, there could be no Gram Panchayat for this village. iii)That under Section 5 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, the Panchayat could not utilise the income of Shamlat land for the benefit of inhabitants of the village who had already left to other village. iv)That the definition of hilly area and the provisions of Section 14-A newly added have been misinterpreted. v) That no question of limitation arises in this case and the suit could not be dismissed on the question of limitation. RSA 1821 of 1980 3 Learned counsel has argued only questions No (ii) and (iii). It is his argument that once the entire land of the village was acquired there was neither any village nor any Gram Panchayat and, since the land was originally owned by the proprietors, the compensation thereof should revert back to the said proprietors. Learned Assistant Advocate General has, however, argued that as per the Land Acquisition Act on the date of the Notification under Sections 4 and 6 the land was owned by the Panchayat and merely because the Panchayat came to an end after the said date would be no ground to hold that the compensation will have to go to the proprietors. The analogy given by learned Assistant Advocate General is that if such a Panchayat had some money in its bank account it cannot automatically vest in the proprietors. As per the learned Assistant Advocate General whichever body/persons would be the legal representatives of the Gram Panchayat would be entitled to get the compensation for this land and thus the suit of the appellants was bound to fail. “Section 3(g) of The Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 as was applicable at the time of the present acquisition is to the following effect:- “3(g)-“Gram Panchayat” means the Panchayat constituted under Section 5 of this Act.” Section 5(1) is as under:- “S. 5. Establishment and constitution of Gram Panchayat.-(1) Government may, by notification, establish a Gram Panchayat by name in every Sabha Area.” Section 8 is as under:- “S. 8. Incorporation of Gram Panchayat - Every Gram Panchayat, shall, by the name notified under sub-section (1) of section 5, be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal, and subject to any restriction by or under this RSA 1821 of 1980 4 Act or any other law, shall have power to acquire, hold, administer, and transfer property, movable or immovable, and to enter into contracts, and shall by the said name sue or be sued and do all such things as are necessary for which it is constituted.” Section 4(2) is to the following effect:- “S. 4(2)- Government may by notification include any area or exclude any area from the Sabha area.” In The Punjab Gram Panchayat Rules, 1965, Rule 3 deals with the disposal of assets and liabilities of Gram Sabha and is to the following effect:- “3. Disposal of asserts and liabilities of Gram Sabha If the whole of the Sabha is included in a municipality,cantonment city, urban estate or notified are rights, obligations, property, assets and liabilities if any,whether arising out of any contract or otherwise shall vest in the Municipal Committee, Cantonment Board (Municipal Corporation, Chief Administrator or Notified Area Committee, as the case may be.” In my opinion this statutory rule governs the issue involved in the present case. Thus, the arguments raised by learned Assistant Advocate General represent the correct view in law. Consequently this appeal is dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE November 26, 2009 Sunita