Single-judge Full Bench dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a petitioners application to purchase Gram Panchayat land. The Court held the application was time-barred and rejected the claim based on equitable principles regarding unauthorized possession.
Dispossession stay of three months lifted; petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.1697 of 2011 Date of Decision: January 31, 2011
Dhanna Ram
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Haryana & others
.....RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: - Mr. B.S. Dhillon, Advocate, for the petitioner.
. . .
AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)
CWP No.1697 of 2011 [2]
short, ‘the Act’). Petitioner approached this Court by way of filing Civil Writ Petition No.17850 of 2009 titled ‘Dhanna Ram vs. State of Haryana & others’. While dealing with the petition, after issuance of notice of motion, the writ petition has been disposed of by passing the following order:-
“After addressing arguments for some time counsel for the petitioner gives up challenge to the order of ejectment and prays that the petitioner may be granted liberty to approach the Gram Panchayat for purchase the land in dispute by filing an application under section 12(4) of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Rules, 1964 (As application to Haryana).
In view of the statement made by the counsel for the petitioner, the impugned orders are affirmed and the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an application under section 12(4) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 before the Gram Panchayat for purchase of the land in dispute, which is the site of his house. In case, such an application is filed within 15 days, it shall be considered and decided within three months.
Dispossession of the petitioner shall remain stayed for a period of three months.
September 24, 2010”
CWP No.1697 of 2011 [3]
application was given however, no receipt was issued. Subsequently, a copy of the application was sent to Block Development & Panchayat Officer, Thanesar and Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, by post which is appended as Annexure P-6. Application sent by post is dated 3.12.2010.
CWP No.1697 of 2011 [4]
Gram Panchayat has to utilise the land for purposes best known to it. The Writ Court will not, under such circumstances impose its own opinion so as to direct the Panchayat to transfer the land in favour of the petitioner and accept money. Equity does not favour the case of the petitioner. Facts and circumstances show that the petitioner took possession of Gram Panchayat land in an unauthorised manner. Taking advantage of the possession, the petitioner wants to become the title holder and owner. Court of law will not favour such conduct, so as to issue direction to Gram Panchayat to transfer the land by way of issuance of directions.
(AJAI LAMBA)
January 31, 2011 JUDGE avin
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash the Gram Panchayat’s rejection of the petitioner’s application to purchase the land as time barred.
Whether the petitioner’s claim for purchase is barred by equity due to unauthorized possession.
Whether there is any ground for judicial interference in the Panchayat’s decision not to accept money for the land.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Dhanna Ram
State of Haryana
AJAI LAMBA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
