IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 11760 of 2011 Date of Decision: October 13, 2011 Bhupinder Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE HON’BLE HON’BLE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NA RAJIV NA RAJIV NA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAIN RAINA RAIN RAINA RAIN RAINA Present: Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Puri, Addl. AG, Punjab, for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, ACJ M.M. KUMAR, ACJ M.M. KUMAR, ACJ M.M. KUMAR, ACJ 1. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks a direction to the official respondent Nos. 1 to 6 to act upon letters dated 16.2.2011 and 16.3.2011 (P-3 and P-4) as well as application dated 25.3.2011 (P-5) made by the petitioner and to take action against Shri Gurpal Singh-respondent No. 7, who is Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Village Meharbanpura, Tehsil and District Amritsar. 2. According to the petitioner, the Gram Panchayat, Meharbanpura, Block Jandiala Guru, District Amritsar, owns and manages about 16 acres of land, which is stated to be given on lease to the inhabitants of the village on yearly basis. On a part of this land, a Colony for the weaker Section has also been CWP No. 11760 of 2011 2 constructed. On 8.4.2005, the land in question was leased out to Ashok Kumar son of Jagat Mittar and Malook son of Baru for a period of five years for agriculture purposes. It is alleged that the said land bears value in crores being situated on Amritsar-Delhi road and respondent Nos. 7 to 9 want to use the same for their vested interests. Earlier also the petitioner along with other persons filed CWP No. 3898 of 2010, which was disposed of by this Court by directing the the authorities to consider and decide the representations of the petitioners within a period of four months, vide order dated 5.3.2010 (P-1). 3. On 16.2.2011, the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Block Jandiala, Amritsar-respondent No. 6 acting on the representation of the petitioner of even date, directed the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Meharbanpura, to stop illegal cultivation on the shamlat land of the village and to send a report (P-3). However, when the needful was not done, the B.D.P.O.-respondent No. 6 again wrote another letter dated 16.3.2011 clearly mentioning that after spot inspection it was found that shamlat land measuring 16 Acres 4 Kanals and 14 Marlas was being cultivated by Ranjit Singh son of Dalbir Singh, Swaran Singh son of Dalbir Singh and Jagjit Singh son of Gurdev Singh etc. Again it was impressed that illegal cultivation be stopped immediately and information be sent (P-4). On 25.3.2011, the petitioner made yet another representation reiterating the earlier grievance (P-5). It is alleged by the petitioner that the auction of the panchayat land was fixed for 8.4.2011 but Shri Gurpal Singh-respondent 7 in collusion with his men, cultivated the land himself with a view to stop other persons of the village to participate in the auction proceedings. The further allegation of the petitioner is that respondent Nos. 7 to 9 are active members of he CWP No. 11760 of 2011 3 ruling party and some of the authorities are hand in glove with them and sheltering them. 4. In response to the notice of motion, reply on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, 5 and 6 has been filed by way of affidavit of Ms. Paramjit Kaur, B.D.P.O., Jandiala Guru, District Amritsar. It has been asserted that the land in question was leased out on 8.4.2005 by the Gram Panchayat for a period of 5 years to Ashok Kumar son of Jagdish Mittar and Malooka son of Bathu. After expiry of the lease period, the Gram Panchayat took back the possession of the land in question in the year 2010. On 1.3.2011 (R-1), a resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat for seeking permission to cultivate the land itself and deposit income of land in the Panchayat fund. On 17.3.2011, the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, granted the permission. Thereafter, the Gram Panchayat has sown paddy crop over an approximate area of 9 acres. The remaining 7 acres of land is unfit for cultivation being unlevelled and due to erection of pillars by some un-authoised occupants. It has also been pointed out that a civil suit filed by Ashok Kumar and Malooka is pending adjudication in the Civil Court at Amritsar and the Court has passed interim orders to maintain status quo regarding possession (R-2 Colly). The respondents have also sought the opinion of the District Attorney whether the land in question could be further leased out. On 14.6.2011 (R-3), the District Attorney has opined that since the matter is sub-judice, the aforementioned course could not be adopted. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book with their able assistance, we are of the considered view that in the light of the aforementioned factual position disclosed in the reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 CWP No. 11760 of 2011 4 to 3, 5 and 6 no further adjudication is required. It has come on record that the Gram Panchayat has started cultivation over a part of the land i.e. approximately 9 acres only after passing a resolution dated 1.3.2011 and obtaining permission from the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, vide order dated 17.3.2011. The remaining seven acres of land is unit for cultivation being unlevelled on account of erection of pillars by unauthorized persons. In so far as further leasing out of the land is concerned, it has come on record that matter is pending before the Civil Court at Amritsar and interim orders have already been passed directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession. In this view of the matter, we come to the conclusion that no further adjudication on the issue raised by the petitioner is necessary. The Gram Panchayat is cultivating the land after due permission. The writ petition is rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) Acting Chief Justice Acting Chief Justice Acting Chief Justice Acting Chief Justice (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) October October October October 13, 201 , 201 , 201 , 2011 Judge Judge Judge Judge PKapoor