CWP No.5890 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.5890 of 2005 Date of Decision: 8.10.2010 Dalip Singh .....Petitioner Vs. Gram Panchayat Village Chajali, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Bhandohal, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab, for respondents no.2 and 3. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J The petitioner impugns an order dated 17.9.2004, passed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab (exercising the powers of the Commissioner) ordering his ejectment. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in dispute was leased out to the petitioner on 1.11.1977 for a period of 10 years for setting up a filling station. The petitioner has set up a petrol pump that benefits the residents of the area. After lapse of the lease period, the petitioner continued to deposit rent with the Gram Panchayat. The Collector, therefore, rightly enhanced the rent and rejected the prayer for ejectment. The order passed by the Commissioner setting aside the order passed by the CWP No.5890 of 2005 2 Collector, disregards the fact that the petitioner has set up a petrol pump and has been paying lease money to the Gram Panchayat. It is further argued that the Gram Panchayat has passed a resolution dated 13.8.2004 recommending exchange of the land in dispute with land offered by the petitioner, but the offer for exchange has been rejected by the Government,on the ground that the new Gram Panchayat has passed a resolution dated 17.1.2009 opposing the exchange. It is prayed that the petitioner should be allowed to retain the land, as the petrol pump is a public service. Counsel for the Gram Panchayat, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner obtained the land on lease for a period of 10 years, which expired in 1987. The petitioner continued to remain in possession without any lease deed or any resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat. The appellate authority has, therefore, rightly ordered the ejectment of the petitioner and the State Government was justified in rejecting the prayer for exchange of land. It is prayed that as the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant, the present petition should be dismissed. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The petitioner obtained the land on lease in the year 1977 for a period of 10 years. Admittedly, the Gram Panchayat has not renewed the lease deed or executed any fresh lease in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner's possession is, therefore, clearly unauthorised. The argument that as the petitioner has set up a petrol pump that offers public service, would not confer legitimacy to the petitioner's unauthorised possession. The petitioner's prayer for exchange of land has been rejected by the CWP No.5890 of 2005 3 Government by holding as follows :- “5. That in view of the orders passed by this Hon'ble High Court on 30.4.2008 the matter of exchange was also considered by the State Government and it was decided that the proposal of exchange is not in favour of Gram Panchayat as it does not fulfill the following conditions :- (i)The value of both the lands is not equivalent as the value of land of Gram Panchayat is higher than the land of petitioner. (ii)The petitioner is not the exclusive owner of the land which he is offering for exchange and is only owner of ½ share i.e. 4 kanal. (iii)The proposal of the said exchange has not been recommended by Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Sunam and District Development and Panchayat Officer Sangrur. (iv)The said proposal has not given any reasons about its benefits to the Gram Panchayat as well as to the inhabitants of the village. (v)The present Gram Panchayat is not in favour of the said exchange.” In view of what has been stated herein above, as the petitioner is in unauthorised occupation of the panchayat property, I have no option but to affirm the order passed by the appellate authority and dismiss the writ petition, with liberty to the petitioner to impugn the order rejecting his CWP No.5890 of 2005 4 proposal for exchange by resort to such proceedings, as may be available in accordance with law. No order as to costs. 8.10.2010 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE