Allowed

Gram Panchayat Vill Tong v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Apr 2011CWP/11056/1990

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order dismissing a petitioner Gram Panchayat's application for land record correction. The court held the petition was competent based on authorized resolution and directed the Addl.Director to correct the khasra entry regarding land reserved for Mata Rani within 8 weeks.

What did the court decide?

The order dismissing the application under Section 42 of the Act was quashed and the petitioner directed to be made Quami of Mata Rani land in Khasra No.33//3/1.

Gram Panchayat Vill Tong Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CWP No.11056 of 1990

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.11056 of 1990

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: April 19, 2011

¶6

GRAM PANCHAYAT, VILLAGE TONG ...PETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

¶9

...RESPONDENTS

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN.

¶11

Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? No

¶12

To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes

¶13

Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes

¶14

PRESENT: MR. VINEY SAINI, ADVOCATE FOR MR. G.S. NAGRA, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER.

¶15

MR. K.S. SIVIA, DAG, PUNJAB.

¶16

K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL)

¶17

The writ petition is at the instance of the Gram Panchayat, village Tong, Tehsil Baba Bakala to quash the order passed on 9.5.1990, by the Addl.Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab in exercise of the powers under Section 42 of The East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'). Vide the impugned order the application filed under Section 42 of the Act had been dismissed. The petitioner had sought for a correction in the record in consolidation proceedings with regard to the fact that an idol of Mata Rani which was in khasra No.33//3/1 had been wrongly entered as falling within the boundary of khasra No.59. The prayer was rejected on technical ground that Panchayat had not shown to have authorized the Sarpanch to move the application and that further the Addl.Director on verification of the records

¶18

CWP No.11056 of 1990

¶19

-2-

¶20

had found that it was held in the ownership of Jumla Mushtarka Malkan and that, therefore, the Gram Panchayat had no locus standi to present the petition.

¶21

The petitioner has filed a copy of the Resolution (Annexure P-5) to show that demarcation of land of Mata Rani Tong was to be got done, an application was to be sent to the BDPO Raya and authorizing Amrik Singh, the then Sarpanch to do all the necessary acts. This resolution is dated 23.10.1989, i.e. prior to the filing of the petition on 19.2.1990 and the decision rendered on 9.5.1990. I, therefore, do not find the petition to be not competent.

¶22

As regards the holding by the Addl.Director that the Panchayat had not locus standi, the learned counsel refers me to Rule 16 of the Act and points out to Clause 2 that reads as follows:-

¶23

“ 16. (2) When the scheme is confirmed under section 20, the land so allotted to the occupancy tenant and the landlord shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), or in any other law for the time being in force, be held by each of them respectively in full right of ownership, and the right of occupancy in the land allotted to the landlord shall be deemed to be extinguished. ”

¶24

Learned counsel argues that the proprietary rights in respect of the property which is reserved to come out of the common pool of the village shall vest in the body of estates and recorded as Jumla Malkan and the management of such property is also required to be done only by the Panchayat. The locus standi of Panchayat cannot, therefore, be disputed.

¶25

CWP No.11056 of 1990

¶26

-3-

¶27

The impugned order is erroneous and is quashed. There shall be a direction in terms of the prayer sought for by the petitioner that Quami

¶28

of Mata Rani shall be made entering the same to fall in khasra No.33//3/1 instead of the entry as made to fall in khasra No.59.

¶29

The correction shall be effected within a period of 8 weeks from the receipt of copy of this order.

¶30

The writ petition is allowed to the above extent.

¶31

April 19, 2011 Gulati

¶32

(K.KANNAN) JUDGE

Gram Panchayat Vill Tong v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gram Panchayat Vill Tong v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karam Chand and Another Vs State of Haryana and Another

Mukhtiar Mohd. @ Mohd. Mukhtiar Vs Sunita R Ani

Doaba Roadways,Ltdhoshiarpur Vs State of Punjab

Fazilka Central Coop. Vs State of Punjab

Krishan Kumar Sharma& Others Vs State of Punjabthroug Its Secy

Santosh Kumari and Ors. Vs State of Punjab