Puran & Ors. v. The State of Haryana & Ors.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL Present: None for the petitioners. Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondents No.1, 2, 4 and 5 None for respondent No.3. ******* RAJIVE BHALLA, J.(ORAL) The petitioners pray that resolution dated 24.01.1984, passed by the Gram Panchayat, gifting the land, in dispute, to the Rural Development Board, Haryana, and order dated 28.03.1984, passed by the State Government, approving the gift, may be set aside. Counsel for the petitioners is not present. The situation was no different on 01.11.2012 and 07.11.2012. However, a perusal of averments in the writ petition reveals that the petitioners allege that as the land, in dispute, was reserved during consolidation for manure pits, it cannot be diverted to any other use. The petitioners also allege that as the land was created during consolidation, after applying a pro-rata cut on the holdings of proprietors under Sections 18 and 23-A of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of CWP No.4996 of 1985 -2- Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1948 Act”) and under Rule 16(ii) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “'the 1949 Rules'), it vests in the Gram Panchayat for management and control alone and, therefore, cannot be transferred, by sale, gift or otherwise, to any person, even to a Government Department. The petitioners essentially rely upon jamabandi for the year 1952-53, site plan, Annexure P-3, and an extract from the register of mutation, Annexure P-4, to support their argument that the land was created during consolidation. Counsel for the State of Punjab submits that the land, in dispute, is Shamilat Deh and was reserved for manure pits but as it was not being used as such and abuts the abadi, it was diverted to a public purpose namely for setting up a Mahila Mandal Bhawan, a Panchayat Ghar and a Shopping Centre, by the Department of the Rural Development, Haryana. The transfer has been approved by the Government and does not suffer from any illegality much less any error. No-one is present on behalf of the Gram Panchayat. We have heard counsel for the State of Punjab, perused the pleadings, the jamabandi, the mutation, the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat and order passed by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana, approving the resolution to gift the land, in dispute. The petitioners' contention that the land was created during consolidation, after applying a pro-rata cut on the holdings of CWP No.4996 of 1985 -3- proprietors, in accordance with Sections 18 and 23-A of the 1948 Act and Rule 16(ii) of the 1949 Rules, is factually incorrect. The jamabandi appended with the petition as Annexure P-2, clearly records that the land is Shamilat Deh. The land created and reserved for common purpose during consolidation, is recorded as “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan”. The land in the present case is “Shamilat Deh” and vests in the Gram Panchayat, under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953 and the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The petitioners' plea that the land was reserved during consolidation for manure pits, is, therefore, incorrect. The 1961 Act, governs the user of the land, in dispute, and does not place any fetter on the right of the Gram Panchayat to change its user, provided it is to be used for a common purpose of the village. A reference in this regard may be made to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shish Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2000(2) PLJ 72 . A relevant extract from the above judgment reads as follows:- “6. We do not agree with the submission of the learned counsel of the appellants that in Bishamber Dayal's case the Full Bench of the High Court had taken a different view than the one which was taken in Khushi Puri's case. The High Court appears to have consistently held that the land vesting in the Gram Panchayat can be used for any one or more of the purposes specified in sub-rule(2) of Rule 3 leasing out for cultivation being one of the purposes. We find no reason to disagree with the High Court and in fact approve the position of law settled by it in Khushi Puri's case (supra), which was upheld by the Full Bench in Bishamber Dayal's case. CWP No.4996 of 1985 -4- A Division Bench of this Court, after relying upon the judgment in Shish Ram's case (supra), has held as follows in Jagdish Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2005 (4) RCR (Civil) 322 (DB): - “4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find no merit in the present writ petition in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shish Ram's case (supra) wherein it has been held that the Gram Panchayat is competent to change the user of the land as fixed at the time of consolidation. In para No.2 of the writ petition, the petitioner has pleaded that land measuring 622 Kanals 15 Marlas is in the possession of the Gram Panchayat whereas in para No.3 of the writ petition it is pleaded that approximately 99 acres of land was kept reserved for the Gram Panchayat. There is nothing on the record to show that the subject land was reserved for any particular purpose in consolidation proceedings. The Gram Panchayat as owner is competent to use the same in the best possible manner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot insist that the land must be leased for cultivation purpose and cannot be given to the Forest Department for plantation of trees.” In view of what has been stated hereinabove, particularly, the fact that the land, in dispute, is not “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan”, and the Gram Panchayat is empowered to alter the user of Shamilat Deh, the writ petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs. [ RAJIVE BHALLA ] JUDGE

12.12.2012 shamsher [ REKHA MITTAL ] JUDGE