CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15748 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 29, 2011 Bant Kaur .....Petitioner VERSUS The Director, Department of Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. R.K.S.Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.S.Jattana, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for the State. Ms.Sushma Chopra, Advocate, for respondent No.4. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Having failed to establish his title, the petitioner seems to be catching on a last straw to impugn the order of his ejectment passed on an application filed by the Gram Panchayat for directing ejectment of the petitioner from the land in her illegal possession. On 16.2.2009, Gram Panchayat filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15748 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: (for short, “the Act”), seeking ejectment of the petitioner from the land measuring 11 Kanals 4 marlas stated to be in her illegal possession. The petitioner was the ex-Sarpanch and that perhaps would explain reason for this illegal possession of the land. The petitioner appeared in response to the notice and pleaded that the land in her possession had been exchanged with the land of the petitioner comprised in Khasra Nos24/11 (3-0) and 20 (2-15) total measuring 5 kanals 15 marlas vide resolution dated 21.3.1986. The petitioner would refer to jamabandies to substantiate that entries regarding this exchange had been duly reflected in the jamabandies. The Collector, however, ordered the ejectment of the petitioner from the land in dispute. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats. The Director had dismissed the appeal. As per the petitioner, he did not apply his mind to the documents available on record. As can be noticed, the Director rejected the pleas raised by the petitioner about the exchange of land on the ground that the Panchayat had not obtained prior permission from the Government for exchange of this land. The Director also found that the order passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala, would have no bearing on the issues involved in the case. It may be noticed here that the petitioner had filed a civil suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering in peaceful possession of the petitioner over the suit land. This suit was decreed on 24.4.2008 and the defendants were restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15748 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: Learned counsel for the petitioner has accordingly challenges the orders passed by the Collector as well as the Director on the ground that they both had failed to appreciate the fact that the possession of the petitioner was not illegal and was on account of exchange of this land, which was duly done by respondent-Gram Panchayat. In the reply filed, respondent-Gram Panchayat has pointed out that the petitioner has filed an application under Section 11 of the Act and despite grant of various opportunities she did not lead any evidence to show her title over the suit land and the same was dismissed in default on 5.9.2006. Once the petitioner could not prove her title over the suit land, she certainly can not claim to be in legal possession of the suit land. The reliance on the exchange on the basis of the resolution of the Panchayat passed on 21.3.1986, would be of no avail to the petitioner as said resolution of the Panchayat would have no legal value as this exchange was never sent or approved by the competent authority. In the resolution, Annexure P- 3, it is clearly recorded that it be sent to competent authority for according approval for the exchange of land. No such approval, however, was ever granted. In this regard, reference can be made to Rule 5 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, which reads as under:- “5. Exchange of land [5 and 15(2)(f) of the Act]: A Panchayat, if it is of opinion that it is necessary so to do for the benefit of the inhabitants of the village may, with the prior approval of the Government transfer any land in shamlat deh by exchange with the land of an equivalent CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15748 OF 2010 :{ 4 }: value. Provided that where the land is required, in connection with the Integrated Rural Development Programme sponsored by the Government, the Panchayat may, with the approval of the Collector transfer any land in shamlat deh by exchange with the land of an equivalent value.” This rule would clearly show that the exchange of the land is permissible only with the approval of the Government. Once the petitioner could not show this approval, the exchange of land on the basis of resolution would have no meaning. The decree passed by the Civil Court is apparently a collusive decree, where the Gram Panchayat had not contested and this can not be pressed into service against the Gram Panchayat. It may also need a notice that the petitioner had herself remained a Sarpanch of the Village and that may, to an extent, explain the conduct and the exchange and the case going uncontested before the Civil Court. In any event, the Civil Court had only passed an order restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession. Such restrained order would only operate if the possession was being forcibly taken. The Panchayat has now got an order of eviction, which is under challenge. There is no viable ground, which would call for interfere in the impugned order. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. August 29, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE