CWP No. 16206 of 2009 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … CWP No. 16206 of 2009 Date of decision: January 27,2011 Rajdeep Singh ..Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Tribhuwan Singla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S.Gill,DAG, Punjab for the respondent Nos.1 to5 Nemo. for respondent No.6 Mr. K.V.Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.7. Mr. H.S.Rakhra, Advocate for respondent Nos.8 and 9 ... Mehinder Singh Sullar , J.(Oral) The contour of the facts, relevant for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that Nagar Panchayat, Handiaya (for brevity, “the Committee”) was the owner of the land in dispute. It decided to sell the land to Punjab Mandi Board(for short,”the Board”) for establishment of market sub-yard, at Government rates vide resolution dated 17.10.2007. Having received the requisite sanction from the Government, the respondent Nos.7 to 9 executed the sale deed dated 13.2.2009 (Annexure P-1). 2. The petitioner claiming himself to be a Municipal Councillor of the Committee, did not feel satisfied and filed the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned sale deed (Annexure P-1), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 CWP No. 16206 of 2009 2 of the Constitution of India, inter alia pleading that the respondent Nos.7 to 9 have wrongly passed the resolution and transferred the land in question vide sale deed (Annexure P-1) against the provisions of Section 35 of the Punjab Municipal Act (hereinafter to be referred as the “Act”). The petitioner claimed that the land can only be transferred by them only in case of grave emergency involving or likely to involve, extensive damage to property or danger to human life or grave inconvenience to the public and not otherwise. 3. Levelling a variety of allegation and narrating the sequence of events, in all according to the petitioner that the transfer of land of the Committee to the Board by means of sale deed (Annexure P-1) is illegal and against the statuary provisions of law. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the petitioner sought the quashment of sale deed (Annexure P-1) in the manner indicated herein above. 4. The respondents contested the claim of the petitioner. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed their joint written statement, while respondent No.5 filed its separate written statement, inter alia pleading that the committee has legally transferred the land to Board vide registered sale deed dated 13.2.2009 (Annexure P-1) at the Government rates for a public purpose. The matter was again discussed in the meeting held on 7.1.2008 and it was unanimously resolved to sell the suit property after seeking the sanction of the Government. The committee requested the Principal Secretary, Local Self Government, Punjab vide its letter dated 8.1.2008 to accord sanction. 5. In addition to it, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 pleaded as under:- “That it is submitted that Nagar Panchayat, Handiaya, sold the said land to Punjab Mandi Board, respondent No.6, vide registered sale deed No.5989 dated February 13,2009. It is further submitted that resolution No. 408 dated October 17,2007 was passed in the meeting of Nagar Panchayat, Handiaya vide which it was approved to give the suit property to Punjab Mandi Board for sub yard at CWP No. 16206 of 2009 3 Govt. rates and thereafter letter No.651 dated November 21,2007 was written to the Deputy Commissioner, Barnala for fixing the rate of the suit property and the Deputy Commissioner, Barnala, vide his letter No. 6/LFS dated January 3,2008 fixed the rate of the suit property, i.e., land measuring 68 Kanal 0 Marla comprised in Khasra No. 1409 to be ` 15,00,000/- per Acre upon which the matter was discussed in the meeting of Nagar Panchayat, Handiaya held on January 7,2008 and it was unanimously resolved to sell the suit property to at the rate fixed by the Deputy Commissioner, Barnala and it was further resolved seek the sanction of the Govt. in this regard and letter No. 32 dated January 8,2008 was written by Nagar Panchayat, Handiaya, to the Principal Secretary, Local Self Govt. Punjab, through the office of respondent No.3 for obtaining the necessary sanction whereupon Punjab Govt. Local Self Govt. Department vide letter No.8/14/08-3SS(3)/291 dated February 4,2008 enquired about the market value of the suit property and the copy of the said letter was endorsed to Nagar Panchayat, Handiaya vide No. 8/14/08-3SS(3)/292 dated February 4,2008. Thereafter respondent No.3 intimated about the market value of the suit property to be `1,27,50,000/- to the Principal Secretary, Local Self Govt. Punjab, Chandigarh vide letter No. 4DDLG-08/2827 dated February 27,2008 upon which sanction was accorded by Punjab Govt. Local Self Govt. vide memo. No.8/14/08-3SS(3)/1136 dated July 14,2008 and a copy of the same was endorsed to Nagar Panchayat Handiaya vide endorsement No. 8/14/08-3SS(3)/1137 dated July 14,2008. It is further submitted that on receipt of the said sanction, the matter was discussed in the meeting of Nagar Panchayat Handiaya on August 1,2008 and it was unanimously resolved to execute the sale deed for the said purpose and the President and the Executive Officer of Nagar Panchayat, Handiaya were authorized to do vide resolution No. 43 dated August 1,2008. Thereafter on February 13,2009 the President exercising the powers conferred on him under section 35 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 executed the sale deed No.5989 dated February 13,2009 (Annexure P-1) in respect of said 68 Kanals of land in favour of Punjab Mandi Board CWP No. 16206 of 2009 4 for an amount of ` 1,27,60,000/-. Thereafter a complaint dated October 7, 2009 (Annexure P- 2) against respondents No. 7 to 9 was moved by the petitioner which was got enquired through Vigilance Cell of Local Self Govt. Punjab, Chandigarh by the Secretary, Local Self Govt. Punjab, Chandigarh. However, no illegality and irregularity was found in the proceedings with regard to the execution of the above noted sale deed and it was also advised to approve the powers exercised under Section 35 of Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 in the meeting of Nagar Panchayat, Handiaya and accordingly on March 11,2010 vide resolution No.62 powers exercised under Section 35 of Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 by the President were approved. It is pertinent to submit here that Rajdeep Singh petitioner was very much present in the said meeting of Nagar Panchayat, Handiaya held on March 11,2010 and no objection whatsoever was raised by him. Thereafter, vide memo. No. 8/14/08-3LG3/803 dated March 31,2010 approval was given by Local Self Govt. Punjab to utilize the sale consideration of the suit property and a copy thereof was endorsed to Nagar Panchayat, Handiaya vide endorsement No. 8/14/08-3LG3/804 dated March 31,2010.” 6. In all, according to the contesting respondents, the committee has legally transferred the land to the Board for the public purpose vide sale deed (Annexure P-1). It will not be out of place to mention here that the respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter. To my mind, the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed in this context. 8. However, the main celebrated argument of the learned counsel that since the land was transferred by the Committee in favour of the Board against the provisions of Section 35 of the Act, therefore, the impugned sale deed (Annexure CWP No. 16206 of 2009 5 P-1) deserves to be set aside, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 9. As is evident from the record that the committee resolved to transfer the land in question to the Board for the establishment of a market yard for a public purpose and passed a resolution dated 17.10.2007 to that effect. On 7.1.2008, it was again unanimously resolved to sell the property at the rate fixed by the Deputy Commissioner. Having obtained the requisite sanction from the Government, the committee executed the sale deed (Annexure P-1) in this relevant connection. 10. Above being the position on record. Now the sole controversy, that arises for determination in this case is whether the committee was legally competent to transfer the land to the Board or not. 11. Having regard to the rival contention of counsel for the parties, to me, the Committee was legally competent and has rightly transferred the property to the Board vide sale deed (Annexure P-1). 12. What is not disputed here is that, no doubt Section 35 of the Act empowers the President or Vice-President to transfer the land in case of certain emergencies and exigencies. But that ipso-facto does not mean that the power of transfer of the Committee under Section 59 of the of the Punjab Municipal Act (hereinafter to be referred as the “Act”) is all together taken away by Section 35 of the Act. Section 59 postulates that the Committee may with the sanction of the State Government, transfer to the Government any property vesting in the Committee under Section 56 or section 57, on the conditions mentioned therein. 13. Not only that Section 240 (1) (o) empowers the State Government to frame rules as to the condition on which the property my be acquired by the Committee or on which the property vested in the Committee, may be transferred by sale, mortgage, lease, exchange or otherwise. 14. It is not a matter of dispute that in pursuance of this power and in CWP No. 16206 of 2009 6 supersession of earlier instructions dated 7.12.1990 and 15.2.1991, the State of Punjab has framed new guidelines of transfer of municipal land to other departments vide memo. No. 1/77/90-2LGIII/1602 dated 22.2.1993, which in substance are as under:- “ State Government has reconsidered thoroughly the matter with regard to the allotment of Municipal land to the Government Departments and Public Sector undertakings and has decided that sites required by Central and Punjab Departments and Public Sector Undertakings may be sold to them if not needed by the Municipal Committee for its own use at current market price as may be fixed by the Collector of the District concerned. The amount realized out of the sale of land may be kept in fixed deposit in the interest of financial health of the concerned Municipal Committee/Notified Area Committee.” 15. A co-joint reading of Section 59 and Section 240 of the Act and the latest instructions dated 22.2.1993, would leave no manner of doubt that the Committee was competent to transfer the land to any other departments of the Government on the conditions depicted therein. Admittedly, the respondent- Committee decided to transfer the land by way of resolution dated 17.10.2007. Not only, that on 7.1.2008, it was again unanimously resolved by the Committee to sell the land at the rate fixed by the Deputy Commissioner. Having obtained the requisite sanction and completing all the codal formalities, the land was rightly transferred by the Committee to the Board by virtue of sale deed (Annexure P-1). 16. In this manner, the contrary argument of the counsel for the petitioner that committee was not competent to transfer the land to the Board, “stricto - sensu” deserves to be and are hereby repelled under the present circumstances of the case. Consequently, it is held that the committee has rightly transferred the land to the Board, having completed all the codal/statutory formalities for public purpose of establishment of market yard. Therefore, no interference is warranted in this relevant connection in the obtaining circumstances CWP No. 16206 of 2009 7 of the case. 17. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the parties. 18. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. January 27,2011 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) nk JUDGE Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No