C.W.P. No.94 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.94 of 1989 Date of Decision.26.04.2010 Sohan Lal ........Petitioner Versus The Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Haryana Civil Secretariat, Haryana Chandigarh and others ....Respondents 2. C.W.P. No.99 of 1989 Ram Kumar ........Petitioner Versus The Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Haryana Civil Secretariat, Haryana Chandigarh and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. Both the writ petitions deal with the same subject and taken up together. The writ petitions have been directed against the respective orders of the Financial Commissioner rejecting the recommendation made by the Commissioner for an order for sale of the property held in the possession of the petitioners in respect of C.W.P. No.94 of 1989 -2- which actions have been initiated by the Gram Panchayat in ejectment under the Village Common Lands Act. It is an admitted case that in the application filed under Section 7, all the petitioners who were arrayed as respondents had pleaded issue of title and the issue of title was also considered, as laid down under Section 13 of the Village Common Lands Act. The applications for ejectment were ordered by the Assistant Collector and appeals had been filed to the Collector by the individuals who were in occupation of the property. The appeals were also dismissed and a revision had been filed to the Commissioner. Before the revision was taken up for final hearing, the Panchayat itself appears to have entered into a settlement with the private occupants offering to sell the property and taking the proposals on record the Commissioner had recommended appropriate orders to be passed by the Financial Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner passed the impugned order stating that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass any final orders in revision proceedings and even a transfer of the Panchayat land could not be done by a mere decision of the Panchayat purporting to act in settlement of its claims in favour of private individuals. The financial Commissioner held that the Administrative Department for granting the sanction for such transfer is Block Development and Panchayat Department and not the Financial Commissioner (Revenue). It is these orders which are in challenge in the writ petition. 2. In place of Section 8(3) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, Section 5-A has been introduced, C.W.P. No.94 of 1989 -3- which sets out the following procedure: "5A. Disposal of lands vested or deemed to have been vested in Panchayat – (1) A Panchayat may, on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed, gift, sale, exchange or lease the land in Shamilat Deh vested in it under this Act tothe members of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes of the village in which such land is situated and to the persons or any other category. (2) The gift, sale, exchange or lease of land in shamilat deh already made shall be deemed to have been made under sub-section (1). 3. In view of the change of law, the orders of the Financial Commissioner stands modified and the consideration of claim of the petitioners for purchase of the property shall be undertaken in the manner provided under the above provision. If the sanction is accorded, the petitioners shall retain the possession and will obtain the sale deed in the manner provided therein. If on the other hand, the sanction is not accorded and the sale is not effected, the authority will be at liberty to obtain ejectment from the petitioners from the respective properties in accordance with law. 4. The writ petitions are disposed of on the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE April 26, 2010 Pankaj*