CR No.995 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.995 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.08.2009 Gulzar Singh & Ors. . ...Petitioners Vs. Gram Panchayat & Ors. ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.G.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the respondents. --- 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? --- Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) Plaintiff/petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated 16.1.2008 passed by the learned courts below vide which application moved CR No.995 of 2008 2 by the petitioners under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) has been ordered to be dismissed. The plaintiff/petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the gram panchayat from carving out plot in land measuring 166 kanals 18 marlas which was said to be reserved for panchayat during consolidation. The suit was filed on the plea that as no purpose was mentioned for which the land was reserved for Gram Panchayat, therefore, it was to be treated to be Bachat land, which was to revert back to the proprietors. The panchayat, therefore, had no jurisdiction to use the same for any purpose. In support of this contention learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the Full Bench judgement of this court in the case of Jai Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2003 (2) RCR (Civil) 578, wherein Hon'ble Full Bench of this court has been pleased to lay down as under:- “48. The lands which, however, might have been contributed by the proprietors on prorata basis, but have not been reserved or earmarked for common purposes in a scheme, known as Bachat land, it is equally true, would not vest either with the State or the Gram Panchayat and instead continue to be owned by the proprietors of the village in the same proposition in which they contributed the land owned by them The Bachat land, which is not used for common purposes under the scheme, in view of provisions contained in Section 22 of the CR No.995 of 2008 3 Act of 1948, is recorded as Jumla Mustarka Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Hasab Rasad Arazi Khewat but the significant difference is that in the column of ownership proprietors are shown in possession in contrast to the land which vests with the Gram Panchayat which is shown as being used for some or the other common purpose as per the scheme. Xx xx xx xx 62. In view of the discussion made above, we hold that:- i) sub-section (6) of Section 2 (g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and the explanation appended thereto, is only an elucidation of the existing provisions of the said Act read with provisions contained in the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948; ii) the un-amended provisions of the Act of 1961 and, in particular section 2 (g)(1) read with sections 18 and 23-A of the Act of 1948 and Rule 16 (ii) of the Rules of 1949 cover all such lands which have been specifically earmarked in a consolidation scheme prepared under Section 14 read with Rules 5 and 7 and confirmed under Section 20, which has been implemented under the provisions of Section 24 and no other lands; iii) the lands which have been contributed by the proprietors on the basis of pro-rata cut on their holdings CR No.995 of 2008 4 imposed during the consolidation proceedings and which have not been earmarked for any common purpose in the consolidation scheme prepared under Section 14 read with Rules 5 and 7 and entered in the column of ownership as Jumla Mustarka Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Hasab Rasad Arazi Khewat and in the column of possession with the proprietors, shall not vest in Gram Panchayat or the State Government, as the case may be, on the dint of sub-section (6) of Section 2 (g) and the explanation appended thereto or any other provisions of the Act of 1961 or the Act of 1948; iv) all such lands, which have been, as per the consolidation scheme, reserved for common purposes, whether utilized or not, shall vest with the State Government or the Gram Panchayat, as the case may be, even though in the column of ownership the entries may be Jumla Mustarka Malkans Wa Digar Haqdaran Hasab Rasad Arazi Khewat etc.” Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that prima facie case was in favour of the petitioners and furthermore they were to suffer irreparable loss and injury in case gram panchayat was not restrained from carving out the plots for allotment to landless persons. It is further the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the stand of the defendant/respondents prima facie was not sustainable in law as the plots were being allotted on the basis of letter of Chief Minister which is not permissible in view of the law laid down by CR No.995 of 2008 5 this court in the case of Mohinder Singh Vs. The Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur and others 1992 PLJ 711, wherein this court has been pleased to lay down that mutation of ownership could not be sanctioned on the basis of letter issued by the Government, as the change in revenue record could only be effected on the basis of some independent evidence. Mr.G.S.Sidhu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents supports the impugned order primarily on the plea that the letter issued by the Chief Minister was letter of Government and unless and until the letter was set aside by the competent court or authority no fault can be found with the order passed by the learned courts below. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the object of allotment by caring out of plots of the landless persons of the village which was a laudable purpose and this court should not exercise jurisdiction under section 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the impugned order. On consideration, I find force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The State Government to achieve laudable purpose can always take resort to law to acquire land for giving plots to the landless persons, but it does not get an authority to allot the land belonging to the proprietors of the village. Once it was prima facie proved that the land reserved for gram panchayat did not mention any purpose, then in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Full Bench of this court in the case of Jai Singh Vs. State of CR No.995 of 2008 6 Haryana (supra), it was to be treated to be Bachat land which was to be reverted back to the proprietors of the village. Even otherwise, letter issued by the Chief Minister could not be said to be an order under the Act which could give any authority to the revenue authority to change the revenue record by entering mutation in favour of the gram panchayat. For the reasons stated above, this revision is allowed. The application moved under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed by directing the parties to maintain status quo during the pendency of the suit. Nothing stated above shall be taken to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (Vinod K.Sharma) 20.08.2009 Judge rp