CWP No. 9603 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 9603 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: May 27, 2011 Rajesh Kumar and others .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana and others .......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Yogesh Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent no. 4-Gram Panchayat not to convert, transfer or change the nature or user of land reserved for specific common purposes such as primary school and play ground, hospital, forest area and Charand, under consolidation scheme. Further prayer made is not to auction lease rights in the land for cultivation or for any other purpose without following procedure as prescribed under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as applicable to Haryana AND without obtaining the prior consent of the proprietary body as it is only with the consent and advise of proprietors that specific lands were reserved for specific common purposes at the time of consolidation. 2. The petition also prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent no. 4-Gram Panchayat to restore 804 kanals of land which was reserved for primary school and play ground and also 3571 kanals 13 marlas of land, which was reserved for Charand, which as CWP No. 9603 of 2011 2 per jamabandi for the year 2004-05, has been shown to be only 962 kanals 5 marlas for charand. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to draw attention of the Court towards any statutory provision that mandates the Gram Panchayat to act under the advise or with prior consent of the proprietary body. 4. It is not the case of the petitioners that there is no land for 'Charand' or the land is inadequate to serve as Charand. It is also not the case of the petitioners that there is a proposal to set up a school or play ground, however, land meant for the said purpose is not being released by the Gram Panchayat in violation of the consolidation scheme. 5. The petition does not allege mala fide so as to say that the Gram Panchayat is promoting unauthorized occupation of its land. The quality of land is not being lowered by actions such as removal of earth etc. 6. As per the contention of the learned counsel, land out of charand land and land that was reserved for primary school and play ground, has been utilized for giving on lease by way of auction so as to generate income for the Gram Panchayat. 7. Considering the equitable aspect of the case, in the considered opinion of the Court, no ground for interference in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction is made out because land that is lying un-utilized is amenable to encroachment by the encroachers in the village. If the said land is utilised by way of auction of lease rights for generating income for the benefit of the residents of the village, surely, the action cannot be said to cause prejudice to the rights of residents of the village. 8. In case there is a proposal to set up a school or land is found CWP No. 9603 of 2011 3 inadequate for Charand, surely the facts can be brought to the notice of the Gram Panchayat for release of land for utilization for the said purpose or the petitioners can ask for intervention of the Deputy Commissioner. 9. At this point in time, however, no substantial injustice is shown to have been caused. No reason is made out to grant the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners. 10. No ground for interference in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction is made out. 11. Petition dismissed. 27.05.2011 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?