IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13643 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: May 18,2010 Chand Singh .....Petitioner versus The State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Ms.Sushma Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Sandeep Moudgil, DAG, Punjab, for respondents No.1 and 2 Mr.G.N. Malik, Advocate for respondent No.3,5 & 6 Mr.V.K. Sandhir, Advocate for respondent No.4 None for respondent No.7 .. RAJAN GUPTA, J.: (Oral) The present civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing resolution/orders Annexures P-2, P-6, P-7 and P-8 dated 6.6.2007, 3.9.2008, 26.11.2008 and 9.1.2009, respectively, whereby a bio-mass plaint has been allowed to set up in village Burj Baghel Singhwala, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur; as also a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents not to change the land use except in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat is unsustainable, as the same is not in the interest of the C.W.P. No.13643 of 2009 - 2 - villagers. According to her, the plant could only be set up far away from abadi and the Gurudwara in the Village. Learned counsel further submits that Director, Rural Development & Panchayats, Punjab (respondent No.2) did not appreciate the controversy in the right perspective while upholding decision of Gram Panchayat to set up biomass plant. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on the other hand, points out that the only discrepancy in the resolution whereby lease was granted for 50 years, has already been rectified and lease in favour of respondent No.4-Company is now for 33 years. Learned State counsel further submits that in terms of Section 5 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, land of village vests in Gram Panchayat and same can be leased out in the interests of the villagers. He further submits that total land vested in the Gram Panchayat measures about 90 acres and only 10 acres thereof has been leased out for the biomass plant. Learned State counsel further submits that the action of the official respondents is fully in accordance with law. Mr. G.N. Malik, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3,5 and 6, submits that decision was taken by majority of members of Gram Panchayat present in the meeting and thus, same is deemed to be a decision taken by the Gram Panchayat. The objections of the villagers have also been taken into consideration, as location of biomass plant has already been shifted to a place where it does not 2 C.W.P. No.13643 of 2009 - 3 - cause any pollution or hindrance to the villagers to visit Gurudwara situated in the village. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book of the case. It is obvious that a biomass plant is being set up in the village for the benefit of the villagers and for making the village self sufficient in terms of power generation. There is nothing on record to show that there is any legal infirmity with the resolutions (Annexures P-2 and P-3) or the orders passed subsequent thereto by the official respondents. The factual aspects highlighted by the petitioner have already been taken into consideration and lease period has been reduced to 33 years. This apart, it appears that location of biomass plant has also been suitably changed. There is, thus, no ground to interfere in the writ jurisdiction of this court. Dismissed. May 18, 2010 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE 3