05.08.2025 Gram Panchayat vil yat village Majri .… v. State of Punjab and and others
Case Details
IN THE HIGH C IGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYAN RYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.113 CWP-14942-2025 Date of decision : 05.08.2025 Gram Panchayat vil yat village Majri .…. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and and others ..... Respondents
Legal Reasoning
made by this Court in the aforesaid ord order dated 24.10.2024: - “The present petitioners seek setting a nexure P-4) passed by respondent No.2 o ld not have invoked the remedy under Sect nsolidation and Prevention of Fragmentat erusal of the order passed goes on to sho rest inasmuch as on account of the religio e of the passage, it was difficult for tur icultural implements and on this accoun orded on North side of Khasra No.25//19 itioners are being duly compensated for the e by giving land on the Southern side umstances the authorities have also found pondent is joint and in future they will find hasra, is not acceptable as said patch of l e and also on the Northern side which is er being passed. It is also pertinent to men itioners the other respondents have not c ich is apparently for the benefit of the gener ing aside of the order dated 23.05.2024 .2 on the ground that respondent No.2 Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings ntation) Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act’). o show that the same is done in public ligious place being situated on Northern r turning the combine and passing of count, the passage as such which is //19 and 20 was sought to be widened. r the land which will be taken from their side of the said field. It is in such found the objection that the land of the find difficult for doing agriculture in the h of land has approaches on the Western h is further now being widened by the mention that apart from the present two ot chosen to challenge the said order eneral public. (Annexu could n (Consol A perus interest side of agricult recorde Petition side by circums respond last kha side an order b petition which is SHAMSHER SINGH 2025.08.13 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh CWP-14942-2025 [ 3 ] In such circumstances, the action o nizance of the application filed by the priv Act is justified as the authorities are utilizin its optimum best. Therefore, the methodolo solidation authorities as such, cannot be sa gality or irregularity which would warrant onstitution of India. on of the official respondents taking private respondents under Section 42 of ilizing the usage of the agricultural land dology which has been adopted by the e said to be suffering from any rant interference under Article 226/227 As such finding no merit in the the present petition, same is hereby 2. cogniza the Act to its op consolid illegalit of Cons 3. dismisse missed.” 4. The challenge to the afore quoted ord The ch ed order before the Supreme Court resulted in the dism e dismissal of Special Leave to Appeal ppeal (C) No(s). 408/2025- Malkit Singh and another ther vs. State of Punjab and other thers on 15.01.2025 through the following order: - “Havin absolute jurisdic Petition aving heard learned senior counsel app olutely no reason to interfere with the i isdiction under Article 136 of the Constit ition is, accordingly, dismissed.” appearing for the petitioners, we see he impugned order in exercise of our nstitution of India. The Special Leave 5. In the light of the above, the matter w In the with regard to the challenge to the alteration of the of the passage in the village stands co nds conclusively settled. 6. Dismissed. Dismis [DEEPAK SIBAL] JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : : Whether reportable Yes / No s / No s / No Yes / No [SUBHAS MEHLA] JUDGE 05.08.2025 shamsher SHAMSHER SINGH 2025.08.13 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh
Arguments
CORAM : HON'B HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS M HON'B AK SIBAL AS MEHLA Present : Mr. D. D. S. Bhinder, Advocate, for the p r the petitioner. Mr. Shekhar Verma, Addl. A. G., Punj Mr. Sh ., Punjab. DEEPAK SIBAL, J AL, J. (Oral) * * * * * 1. The instant petition has been file The i n filed by the petitioner-Gram Panchayat of villag village Majri, Tehsil Jagraon, District istrict Ludhiana to challenge order dated 23.05.2024, , passed by respondent No. 2, th through which the course of a passage in the v the village, which had been fina n finalized during consolidation proceedings, has be has been altered. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for After h el for the parties and perusing the record, the undispu ndisputed facts which have emerged erged are that on the conclusion of the consolidation p tion proceedings in the year 1956, 956, a passage was earmarked in village Majri, Tehs , Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana. iana. On 19.04.2023 respondents No. 3 to 7, who w ho were the inhabitants of the villag village, filed an application under Section 42 of the the East Punjab Holdings (Conso (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act ) Act, 1948 seeking therein alteratio ation of the said passage. The said application w tion was allowed by respondent N ent No. 2 through order dated 23.05.2024. Resp Respondents No. 16 and 17, who , who were also co-villagers of SHAMSHER SINGH 2025.08.13 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh CWP-14942-2025 [ 2 ] respondents No. 3 t o. 3 to 7, challenged the order dated dated 23.05.2024 before this Court through filing of g of a writ petition being CWP-19 19177-2024-Malkit Singh and another vs. State o ate of Punjab and others, which pet ich petition of theirs was dismissed by a Co-ordinate inate Bench on 24.10.2024. The The order of this Court dated 24.10.2024 was the as then tested before the Supreme Co me Court through filing of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 408/2025- Malkit Sin t Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and others hers, which also met the same fate e fate as their petition before this Court. The order d rder dated 23.05.2024 passed by resp y respondent No. 2, is now sought to be challenged be before this Court, for the second cond time, but now at the instance of the petitioner-Gr Gram Panchayat. 3. The order impugned through the ins he instant petition was passed by respondent No. 2 in the exercise of revisionary po ary powers and through the same, the course of a pass passage in the village, has been ord en ordered to be altered. The said order has already been upheld by this Court throug through its order dated 24.10.2024, passed in CWP-191 19177-2024, on the ground that the at the alteration of the passage was in public interest terest and for which all affected p cted persons had also been duly compensated. In . In this regard, it would be usefu useful to refer to the following observations made b