Allowed

Gram Panchayat Gulabgarh v. Collector Yamnunagar & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Aug 2013CWP/11123/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench quashed a Collector's order leasing disputed Gram Panchayat land for mineral extraction without the Panchayat's resolution. It restrained the lessee from digging and accepted the case as moot regarding the three contempt petitions.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 15.6.2000 quashed; lessee restrained from excavation; deposited funds refunded via Collector.

Gram Panchayat Gulabgarh Vs Collector Yamnunagar… — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

¶2

1. Civi	l Writ Peti	tion No. 11123 of 2000 (O&M)
Gram Panchayat, Gulabgarh		... Petitioner
	Versus
The Collector, Yamunanagar a	nd Others	... Respondents
2.		C.O.C.P. No. 91 of 2001
Gram Panchayat, Gulabgarh		... Petitioner
	Versus
Megh Raj and Others		... Respondents
3.		C.O.C.P. No. 236 of 2001
Gram Panchayat, Gulabgarh		... Petitioner
	Versus
Vikram Singh and Others	AND	... Respondents
4.		C.O.C.P. No. 1086 of 2002
Megh Raj		... Petitioner
	Versus
Smt. Surji Devi and Others		... Respondents
Date of	Decision:	2.8.2013

¶3

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh, Judge. Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S.Sandhawalia, Judge.

¶4

Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2013.08.20 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶5

Civil Writ Petition No. 11123 of 2000 (O&M), C.O.C.P Nos. 91 & 236 of 2001 And No. 1086 of 2002

¶6

¶7

Present: Mr. R.S.Longia, Advocate for the petitioner (In Civil Writ Petition No. 11123 of 2000 and C.O.C.P. Nos. 91 & 236 of 2001).

¶8

Mr. D.Khanna, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondents No.1, 2 & 4 (In Civil Writ Petition No. 11123 of 2000).

¶9

Mr. S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate for respondent No.3 (In Civil Writ Petition No. 11123 of 2000) and for respondent No.1 (In C.O.C.P. Nos. 91 & 236 of 2001).

¶10

Jasbir Singh, Judge (Oral)

¶11

This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 11123 of 2000 titled as “Gram Panchayat, Gulabgarh v. The Collector, Yamunanagar & Others” and three contempt petitions viz. C.O.C.P Nos. 91 of 2001 titled as “Gram Panchayat, Gulabgarh v. Megh Raj & Others”, No. 236 of 2001 titled as “Gram Panchayat, Gulabgarh v. Vikram Singh & Others” and No. 1086 of 2002 titled as “Megh Raj v. Smt. Surji Devi & Others”. To dictate order, facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 11123 of 2000.

¶12

Gram Panchayat of village Gulabgarh (petitioner) has laid challenge to a letter/order dated 15.6.2000 (Annexure P8) vide which three acres of its land, falling in khasra No. 14//13, 14 and 20//17 was leased out in favour of respondent No.3 to extract minor minerals i.e. sand and bajri etc. therefrom. That order was passed by the Collector, Yamunanagar.

¶13

It is grievance of the Gram Panchayat that the land in dispute was cultivable and being leased out by it from year to year. In some part

¶14

Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2013.08.20 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶15

Civil Writ Petition No. 11123 of 2000 (O&M), C.O.C.P Nos. 91 & 236 of 2001 And No. 1086 of 2002

¶16

¶17

of the land, tree plantation has been done. To say so, reliance was placed upon a copy of khasra girdawari dated 16.6.2000 (Annexure P4) which proves the above said contention of the petitioner.

¶18

As per letter (Annexure P8) dated 15.6.2000, lease was subject to execution of an agreement between the Gram Panchayat and lessee-respondent No.3. It is so said in paragraph No.4 of the letter under challenge. Admittedly, no agreement was entered into between the Gram Panchayat and respondent No.3. When respondent No.3 started digging at the spot, this writ petition was filed.

¶19

The fact that no agreement was entered into between the parties is coming out from a letter written to the Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar, which was placed on record as Annexure R3/6. In that letter, it is clearly mentioned that the Gram Panchayat has given permission orally to respondent No.3 to excavate the minerals. The mining lease was upto 31.3.2002.

¶20

Thereafter, one contempt petition was filed against respondent No.3 by the Gram Panchayat. It was stated by the Gram Panchayat that in violation to an order passed by this Court, staying operation of letter (Annexure P8), on 12.9.2000, respondent No.3 had started extracting minor minerals at the spot. To the contrary, in a contempt petition filed by respondent No.3, it was an allegation that the Gram Panchayat has started levelling the land to show that it was under cultivation. Three contempt petitions were ordered to be taken up with this writ petition.

¶21

We have heard counsel for the parties.

¶22

Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2013.08.20 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶23

Civil Writ Petition No. 11123 of 2000 (O&M), C.O.C.P Nos. 91 & 236 of 2001 And No. 1086 of 2002

¶24

¶25

It is apparent on record that before passing an order (Annexure P8) on 15.6.2000, the Gram Panchayat was not taken into confidence. The process to lease out the land in dispute was started when an application was filed by respondent No.3 to the Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar showing his intention to take up that land on lease to extract minor minerals. The Deputy Commissioner sent a letter to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Chhachhrauli on 9.6.2000 that the Gram Panchayat wanted to give land on lease for excavation of minor minerals, the Block Development & Panchayat Officer concerned was directed to make a report as to whether the land was lying vacant or not. Report was given that the land was barren, stony and was vacant. Thereafter, order dated 15.6.2000 was passed.

¶26

There is nothing on record to show that Gram Panchayat ever passed any resolution to lease out the land for excavation as stated by the Deputy Commissioner. Unless the Gram Panchayat opts to give land on lease, the Deputy Commissioner has no authority to lease out the land in favour of respondent No.3. After issuance of letter dated 15.6.2000, the Gram Panchayat refused to enter into any agreement with respondent No.3 for excavation of its land. Rather resolution was passed to the contrary on 17.7.2000 (Annexure P9) stating that the land is under cultivation and for the last 4-5 years, it is being given on lease. It was also stated that many trees are standing at the spot. The fact that the land was being given on lease is also coming out from the record of the contempt petition filed by respondent No.3 wherein it is stated that to

¶27

Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2013.08.20 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶28

Civil Writ Petition No. 11123 of 2000 (O&M), C.O.C.P Nos. 91 & 236 of 2001 And No. 1086 of 2002

¶29

¶30

the lessees of Gram Panchayat, respondent No.3 had returned their lease amount and had taken possession from them.

¶31

In view of the facts mentioned above, we allow this writ petition and quash order dated 15.6.2000 (Annexure P8) passed by the Collector, Yamuna Nagar. Respondent No.3 is restrained from carrying out excavating activities in the land in dispute. If any amount is deposited by respondent No.3 in the accounts of Gram Panchayat, he may put his claim before the Collector, Yamuna Nagar for refund thereof. The Collector will note as to whether any excavation has been done by respondent No.3 at the spot and thereafter pass an appropriate order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Gram Panchayat.

¶32

In view of the order passed in this writ petition, all the three contempt petitions are disposed of being infructuous.

¶33

(Jasbir Singh) Judge

¶34

(G.S.Sandhawalia) Judge

¶35

August 2, 2013 “DK”

¶36

Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2013.08.20 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Gram Panchayat Gulabgarh v. Collector Yamnunagar & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gram Panchayat Gulabgarh v. Collector Yamnunagar & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rulia Ram Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Sarwan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Smt Mali Vs Collector, Mohindergarh & Ors.

Gram Panchayat Gulabgarh Vs Vikram Singh & Ors.

Gram Panchayat,Gulabgarh Vs Megh Raj

M/S Punjab Aggregates and Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.