C.W.P No.145 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. C.W.P No.145 of 2007 Date of Decision: 16.12.2008 Gram Panchayat ....Petitioner. Versus Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Pb. and others. ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S. Khehar Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Karanvir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Simsi Dhir, AAG, Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Aman Kashyap, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4. ... J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral). Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the orders dated 30.1.2004 (Annexure P-5) and 21.7.2006 (Annexure P-6) vide which the private respondents were auctioned land by an erstwhile Gram Panchayat for purposes of fish farming for a period of 10 years with an increase in the lease amount at the rate of 10%, every two years. In order to assail the determination rendered by the erstwhile Gram Panchayat in leasing the land in question to the private respondents, C.W.P No.145 of 2007 2 learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Rule 6(4) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Village Common Lands Rules). Rule 6(4) of the aforesaid Rules, is being extracted hereunder: -- “6(4). All ponds used for the plantation of Shingharas and for stocking fish may be auctioned in the month of September every year. Provided that where a Department of Punjab Government or of the Government of India or a member of the Fish Farmer Development Agency sponsored by the Government desires to take a pond on lease for rearing fish, the panchayat may lease it to such Department for a period, not exceeding fifteen years or to such members for a minimum period not exceeding ten, as may be agreed upon between the parties.” Relying on the aforestated rule, it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that a pond could have been leased to the petitioner for the purposes of fish farming by way of an auction for a period of one year only. In order to substantiate his aforestated contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has emphatically placed reliance on the words “September every year” expressed in Rule 6(4) of the Village Common Land Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the proviso under Rule 6(4) of the Village Common Land Rules in order to assert, that it is only for an express class/category of people that the lease period can be extended up to 10/15 years. Relying on the aforesaid proviso, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that a lease can C.W.P No.145 of 2007 3 be executed with a Department of the Government of Punjab, or with a Department of the Government of India extending to a maximum period of 15 years; or with a member of the Fish Farmer Development Agency sponsored by the government extending to a maximum period of 10 years. In this behalf, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that respondents No.3 and 4 do not belong to the aforestated express categories in whose favour a lease in excess of a period of one year can be granted, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. In order to repudiate the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 has placed reliance on two certificates, appended to the joint written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.3 and 4 as Annexures R-2 and R-3, respectively. A perusal of the aforesaid certificates reveal, that respondents No.3 and 4 were both members of the Fish Farmer Development Agency, Ropar i.e. a Fish Farmers Development Agency sponsored by the government. It is the submission of the learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4, that both the private respondents being members of the aforestated Fish Farmer Development Agency, were entitled to the benefit of the proviso under Rule 6(4) (extracted hereinabove). Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the rival parties, we are satisfied that respondents No.3 and 4 were members of a Fish Farmer Development Agency sponsored by the government, and as such, were eligible for extended lease up to a period of 10 years. Since the impugned lease was executed by the erstwhile Gram Panchayat in favour of respondents No.3 and 4 for a period of 10 years, we are satisfied that the erstwhile Gram Panchayat committed no error in C.W.P No.145 of 2007 4 executing the aforesaid lease by way of auction in favour of respondents No.3 and 4. The second contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is based on the fact, that respondents No.3 and 4 were related to an erstwhile member of the Gram Panchayat. It was on account of the aforestated relationship, that respondents No.3 and 4 were extended a favour. The second contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is opposed by the learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 by inviting our attention to two facts. Firstly, that when the present Gram Panchayat, which has filed the present writ petition, auctioned similar lands for purposes of fish farming, the auction amount fetched was less than the rate which has been agreed to be paid by respondents No.3 and 4 (under the impugned orders). Secondly, it is the submission of the learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4, that the erstwhile Gram Panchayat had made efforts to auction eight pieces of land, but was successful in auctioning only four of the said eight pieces of land. It is, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4, that no favour has been shown to respondents No.3 and 4 on account of their relationship with the members of the erstwhile Gram Panchayat. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we are in total agreement with the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4. For the reasons depicted in the foregoing paragraph, it is apparent that no favour was shown to respondents No.3 and 4 while leasing the land in question to them by way of an auction for purposes of fish farming. C.W.P No.145 of 2007 5 No other submission, besides those noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, was advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the instant writ petition, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. ( J.S. Khehar ) Judge ( Nirmaljit Kaur ) Judge. 16.12.2008 sk.