CWP No.11863 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.11863 of 2006 Date of Decision: 22.9.2010 Gram Panchayat, Phirny Majara, Block Saroya, Distt.Nawan Shahar .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Sanjiv Pandit, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab for respondents no.1 to 4. Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate for respondent no.5. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The Gram Panchayat of village Phirny Majara, prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 31.5.2006, whereby the order dated 6.5.2005, passed by Collector-cum- District Development and Panchayat Officer, Nawanshahr, has been reversed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the land in dispute belongs to the Gram Panchayat, the Joint Development Commissioner (exercising the powers of the Commissioner), under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') has erroneously accepted the appeal filed by respondent no.5, by holding that the land does not belong to the Gram Panchayat and restrained the CWP No.11863 of 2006 2 Gram Panchayat from auctioning the land. It is submitted that revenue entries record the ownership of the Gram Panchayat and though the land was given on maufi to a Mahant, it has reverted to the Gram Panchayat, as there is no Mahant of the Dera. It is argued that the appellate authority had no jurisdiction, while exercising powers under Section 10(2) of the Act, to return a finding that the Gram Panchayat is not the owner of the land in dispute, as such a question can only be answered by a Collector, exercising powers under Section 11 of the Act. It is prayed that as the land belongs to the Gram Panchayat, the impugned order should be set aside and the Gram Panchayat should be allowed to assume management and control of the land in dispute. Counsel for respondent no.5, on the other hand, submits that the land in dispute is maufi land dedicated to a Dera. The land does not fall within the definition “Shamilat Deh”, in view of the exemption granted by Section 2(g)(ix) of the Act. As the incumbent Mahant passed away, the Gram Panchayat, made an attempt to appropriate the property and auction the land. Respondent no.5 filed an application before the Block Development and Panchayat Officer to restrain the Gram Panchayat from entering the land or auctioning the trees. The Block Development and Panchayat Officer granted liberty to the Gram Panchayat to auction the land, till such time as a Mahant is appointed. This order was rightly set aside by the Joint Development Commissioner, as a similar dispute relating to the same maufi, but of village Jatpura, was decided in favour of respondent no.5. It is further submitted that a Mahant was appointed vide order dated 13.3.2006 passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nawanshahr. The order was affirmed by the Collector in appeal CWP No.11863 of 2006 3 and by the Commissioner in revision. It is further pointed out that Gram Panchayat filed a civil suit for declaration of its ownership, but its prayer for interim relief was declined and affirmed upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Gram Panchayat and respondent no.5 thereafter arrived at a compromise on 15.8.2006, whereby the Gram Panchayat agreed not to interfere in the affairs of the Dera or in the land in dispute. It is prayed that in view of these facts, the writ petition should be dismissed. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The dispute in the present case, briefly put, is whether the Gram Panchayat has any right to auction the land in dispute. A perusal of the pleaded facts prima facie establishes that the land in dispute does not vest in the Gram Panchayat, as it is a maufi land. Section 2(g)(ix), exempts “maufi land” from vesting in “Shamilat Deh”. Section 2(g)(ix) reads as follows :- “2(g)(ix) was being used as a place of worship or for purposes, subservient thereto, immediately before the commencement of this Act.” The exclusion of a place of worship and its property from the definition of “Shamilat Deh” prima facie establishes that the Gram Panchayat has no right to auction the trees or to claim possession of this land. It would also be necessary to state that a Mahant has been appointed. The Gram Panchayat filed a civil suit which ended in a compromise with the religious institution on 15.8.2006. The compromise reads as follows :- CWP No.11863 of 2006 4 “ Today on 15.8.2006 in the presence of respectable persons the following compromise had taken place :- 1. That Gram Panchayat Phirni Mazara is duty bound to withdraw all the cases pending in thevarious courts against Sh.umesh Giri till 28.9.2006. 2. That Mahant Umesh Giri and their religious places Bee-wala Shiv Ward No.7, Balachaur, Tehsil Balachaur, Distt. Nawanshahr and land measuring 62 Kanals 12 Marlas which is situated in Village Phirni Mazara. The Panchayat has no concern in the land of religious Institution and Gram Panchayat will not interfere in any manner. Mahant Sh.Umesh Giri can use the land as per his will and they can cut the trees planted on the land. 3. That Mahant Sh.Umesh Giri and other members of religious place will not claim any compensation regarding court cases. The above compromise has been entered and accepted without any pressure by both the parties. Both the parties will bound by this decision and who so ever will violated the above decision then the same will be found guilty in the court of law.” In view of the compromise, the fact that a new Mahant has been appointed and that the land in dispute is “maufi land”, the impugned CWP No.11863 of 2006 5 order does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or of law, as would require interference. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed, with no order as to costs. The Gram Panchayat may, if it deemed appropriate, seeks its remedy with respect to title, in accordance with law. 22.9.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE