CWP No. 19745 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 19745 of 2009 Date of decision : 15.02.2011 Sucha Singh & others ...Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Rajesh K. Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sartaj Singh Gill, D.A.G., Punjab for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 Mr. G.S. Bal, Advocate for respondent Nos. 6 to 10 Mr. V.K. Sandhir, Advocate for respondent No. 11 **** M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral) The epitome of facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that the Gram Panchayat, Bishankot, Block Kalanaur, District Gurdaspur (respondent No. 11) (for brevity “the Gram Panchayat”), passed two resolutions on 14.05.2007 (Annexure P1) and proposed to exchange its land in question, with the land of private respondent Nos. 6 to 9, described in site plan (Annexure P2), in view of the provisions of The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and rules framed therein (herein referred to be as “the Act/Rules”). Having obtained the requisite sanction/approval of the Government of Punjab (Annexure P3 & P4), the Gram Panchayat exchanged the land with the land of the private respondents. 2. The petitioners claiming themselves to be the Panches of the Gram CWP No. 19745 of 2009 -2- Panchayat, did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned orders (Annexures P-3 & P4) of the Government and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, pleading that Chian Singh, Ex-Sarpanch (respondent No. 10) managed to pass the resolutions (Annexure P1) to exchange the valuable land of the Gram Panchayat with the inferior quality of land of private respondents. The petitioners claimed that when they came to know about the indicated exchange then they moved an application to Minister, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab, Chandigarh, intimating that there is no need to exchange the land and the reasons mentioned in the resolutions are wrong but no action, to nullify the exchange proceedings, was initiated by the official respondents. The exchange was stated to be against the statutory provisions of the Act and rules. 3. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequences of events, in all, according to the petitioner that the Gram Panchayat has illegaly exchanged its superior quality of land with the inferior quality of land of private respondent Nos. 6 to 9. On the basis of aforesaid allegation, the petitioners sought the quashment of impugned sanction orders (Annexures P3 & P4), in the manner depicted herein above. 4. The respondents contested the claim of the petitioners. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 filed their joint written statement, while private respondent Nos. 6 to 9 filed their separate joint written statement and Administrator filed separate written statement on behalf of the Gram Panchayat, inter alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of maintainability of the writ petition and locus standi and cause of action of the petitioner. 5. The case set up by the contesting respondents, in brief, insofar as relevant, was that the Gram Panchayat has rightly passed the resolutions (Annexure P1). All the relevant officers have taken into consideration the assessment of the price of the lands and referred the matter to the Government for CWP No. 19745 of 2009 -3- its approval. The Block Development and Panchayat Officer/Deputy Commissioner got assessed the market price of the land and then District Development and Panchayat Officer (for brevity “the D.D.P.O) forwarded the recommendations to Divisional Director, Jalandhar who recommended the case of exchange to the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab. According to the official respondents, after considering all the recommendations of field authorities, the technical report in respect of land obtained from the Executive Engineer (Panchayati Raj) and other relatable material and the purpose, the Government approved the sanction of exchange of the lands in question, as per the provisions of Rule 5 framed under the Act. 6. Sequelly, the private respondents have also toed the line of pleadings, taken by the official respondents, in this relevant connection. It will not be out of place to mention here that the contesting respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal. That is how I am seized of the matter. 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, there is no merit in the instant writ petition, in this context. 8. Ex-facie, the celebrated arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that the indicated exchange of superior quality of land of the Gram Panchayat with the inferior quality of land of the private respondents, is not, in accordance with the Rules and benefit of the Gram Panchayat, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. Rule 5 framed under Section 5 & 15(2) of the Act postulates that a Panchayat, if it is of opinion that it is necessary to do so for the benefit of the inhabitants of the village may with the prior approval of the CWP No. 19745 of 2009 -4- Government, transfer any land in shamilat deh by exchange with an equivalent land. 9. As is evident from the record that the Gram Panchayat has duly mentioned in the resolutions that there is a very less space for the ground of village school, as a result of which, the school children are facing great difficulty and since the land of the private respondents is adjacent to the ground so it will be in the benefit of the inhabitants of the village, to exchange land. Likewise, it has been mentioned that neither there is pond for the discharge of dirty water in the village nor the panchayat is having any land which can be utilised for pond. As a result of which the demand of the discharge of the dirty water by constructing the pond is the main demand of the inhabitants of the village so that the dirty water could be discharged and it will be in the interest of the villagers to exchange the land. The location of the lands in question has been depicted in the site plan (Annexure P2) which would reveal that the land of the private respondents is adjacent to the existing playground of government primary school and the abadi of the village most suitable for the indicated purposes which supports the grounds depicted in the resolutions (Annexure P1). 10. Not only that the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab, Chandigarh (Respondent No. 3) has filed the counter affidavit inter alia indicating that the copy of the resolutions Annexure P1, was forwarded to the Block Devlopment and Panchayat Officer (respondent No. 5) (herein referred to be as the “B.D.P.O). After considering the resolutions, the B.D.P.O requested the Naib Tehsildar Kalanaur, vide his letter/endorsement No. 1389 dated 16.7.2007 to assess the market price of lands of the Gram Panchayat as well as the private respondents. In turn, Naib Tehsildar Kalanaur informed the B.D.P.O, Kalanaur on 16.07.2007 that the current market price of both the lands was 10 lac per acre . The matter was referred to the the D.D.P.O , Gurdaspur who inspected the spot and came to the conclusion that exchange of land is in the public interest. 11. This is not the end of the matter, in the wake of request of the CWP No. 19745 of 2009 -5- D.D.P.O, Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur informed vide letter dated 20.11.2007 that the Collector rates of the lands in question were almost the same. After considering the report of Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, the D.D.P.O forwarded the recommendation along with the prices to the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab for exchanging the land. The technical report in respect of the land was also obtained from the Executive Engineer (Panchayati Raj), Gurdaspur vide letter dated 27.06.2008, who advised that the land of private owner is suitable for the purpose of discharging of the dirty water, as the land of the Gram Panchayat is at a distance of one kilometer away from the village. Thereafter, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, purpose and the value of the lands, the Government approved the proposal, for the exchange of the Gram Panchayat shamlat land, in accordance with Rule 5 of the Act. 12. Meaning thereby, the relevant Authorities have rightly considered the entire material/price of the land and the Government has rightly accorded the approval, vide (Annexures P3 & P4) keeping in focus the interest of the inhabitants of the village. In this manner, it cannot possibly be saith that the respondents have illegally exchanged the land, in this relevant direction, as urged on behalf of the petitioners. Therefore, the contrary argument of learned counsel for the petitioners deserve to be and are hereby repelled, in the obtaining circumstances of the present case. 13. No other legal point worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by learned counsel for the parties. 14. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge February 15, 2011 G.Arora Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No