Sukhmander Singh and Others vs State of Punjab and Others

Sat Pal and Iqbal Singh, JJ.—In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order, dated 25th November, 1994 (copy of which is Annexure P-11), by which the Government of Punjab granted approval for exchange of land measuring 1 Kanal 13 Maria in Khasra No. 842 with the land measuring 2 kanals 13 marlas belonging to Mohinder Singh son of Shri Lal Singh. It may be pointed out here that the said approval was granted by the Government pursuant to the resolution dated 23rd August, 1993, passed by the Gram Panchayat and the copy of this resolution has been annexed as Annexure P-12 with this petition.

Mr. Deol, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, drew our attention to Rule 5 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 and submitted that in terms of the said rule, the land belonging to the Panchayat could be exchanged only if the same was necessary for the benefit of the inhabitants of the village. He submitted that in terms of the said rule, the land belonging to the Panchayat could be exchanged only if the same was necessary for the benefit of the inhabitants of the village. He submitted that in the resolution, there is no mention to the effect that this land has been exchanged for the benefit of the inhabitants. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Fateh and Others Vs. Gram Panchayat and Others, . The learned counsel further submitted that the aforesaid judgment was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in the case, M/s. Vikalap Agro Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana etc. 1996 P.L.J. 177. The learned counsel also submitted that while granting the approval for the exchange, the value of the two lands was not taken into consideration as required under Rule 5.

Mr. Ashok Singla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Gram Panchayat, has, however, drawn our attention to the report of the District Health Officer, dated 18th May, 1987, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure R-1, with the written statement filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 5. In this report, it has been specifically mentioned that the Haddan Rori (which was situated in Khasra No. 842) was near the village and on this ground the water of the Water tank was being polluted and the said water was quite harmful for the health of the villagers. Pursuant to this report, the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution on 15th July, 1989 which has been reproduced in Annexure R-2. In this resolution, it has been stated that the Haddan Rori was near the village and as such the Haddan Rori should be shifted to Darakhatanwala Tak Comprised in Khasra No. 85/2 which is adjoining the parth. It may be relevant to point out here that from this resolution, it is clear that the land situated in Khasra No. 842 had become redundant for the village Panchayat as it was of no use for the village Panchayat. The learned counsel for the Panchayat therefore, contended that since this land was not of any use, this land measuring 1 kanals 13 marlas has been exchanged with the land of Mohinder Singh measuring 2 Kanals 13 marlas. He also drew our attention to Para 19 of the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent No. 5 and submitted that the land of Mohinder Singh was assessed to be of the value of Rs. 33,125/- whereas the land of Panchayat was evaluated at Rs. 29417/-. He, therefore, contended that the exchange of land was in the interest of village Panchayat as well as its inhabitants.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. From the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it is clear that the land belonging to Khasra No. 842 was not of any use for the Panchayat and it had become redundant. The exchange of this land with bigger piece of land having higher valuation which was likely to increase the income of Panchayat as stated in Resolution dated 23rd August, 1993 (Annexure P-12) was not only in the interest of the village Panchayat but was also for the benefit of the inhabitants as the income from the land has to be utilised for the benefit of the inhabitants. Since we have held that the exchange of land was for the benefit of the inhabitants, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel of the petitioners are of no assistance to them.

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the land belonging to Khasra No. 842 has already been exchanged in favour of one Jaggar Singh. On our asking, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any averment in the writ petition to the effect that the land belonging to Khasra No. 842 belonged to Jaggar Singh and not to the Panchayat. On the contrary, in para 2 of the petition, it has clearly been stated that the land of Khasra No. 842 belongs to Panchayat.

In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in this petition and dismiss the same.