Dismissed

Harnek Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Jul 2013CWP/25679/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ challenge to the State Government's approval of a Gram Panchayat's resolution to lease out and exchange common land for commercial use. The Court found the transaction lawful, beneficial to the villagers, and procedurally correct as prior approval was obtained.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed against the approval of land lease and exchange was dismissed.

Harnek Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CWP No. 25679 of 2012

�1�

�� 

CWP No.25679 of 2012 Date of decision: 24.07.2013

¶6

Harnek Singh and others

¶7

$.Petitioners

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State of Punjab and others

$.Respondents

��

��

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶14

Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes

¶15

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

¶17

Present: Mr. M.L.Saggar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sunny Saggar, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶18

Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arnav Sood, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

¶19

Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ajaivir Singh, Advocate for respondent no.4.

¶20

*****

¶21

��

¶22

Challenge in the present writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 13.10.2011 (Annexure P�7) whereby respondent no.1 has granted approval to the resolution dated 24.2.2011 (Annexure P�5) passed by respondent no.4� Gram Panchayat, village Kanech, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. As per

¶23

Kumar Pardeep 2013.08.01 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CWP No. 25679 of 2012 �2�

¶25

¶26

resolution, land of the Gram Panchayat measuring 2 kanals 2 Marlas was leased out for 31 years which was alleged to be in violation of the direction of this Court in Criminal Misc. No.23125 of 2011 titled as Kuldip Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others.

¶27

The pleaded case of the petitioners is that the land measuring 2 Kanals and 2 Marlas comprising in Khewat No.772, Khatoni No.830, Khasra No.81, 82 as per Jamabandi for the year 2006�07 and had been described as “Gair Mumkin Marian” and the same was being used as Hadda Rori . The said land was near the Ambala�Amritsar railway line passing near the village where the dead animals of the entire village were being disposed off. Respondent no.4 was engaged in the business of Container Trade Marketing and Construction thereof and was intending to construct a warehouse of containers and was in the process of purchasing the land for the said purpose and it had applied to the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat to hand over the possession of the land in question for the construction of a railway line for the warehouse. Respondent no.2�Gram Panchayat, village Kanech passed resolution dated 24.2.2011 whereby it had sought to lease out the land in question for a period of 31 years to respondent no.4�company. The said resolution was forwarded to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer and District Development and Panchayat Officer, which was further referred to respondent no.1, who approved it under Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). The respondent No.4�company paid a sum of ��1,10,512/� on account of lease money for 5 years from 2011�12 to 2015�16 to the Gram Panchayat and thereafter possession of

¶28

Kumar Pardeep 2013.08.01 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

CWP No. 25679 of 2012 �3�

¶30

¶31

land measuring 2 Kanals 2 Marlas was handed over to respondent no.4 who started to raise boundary wall around it. Accordingly, the writ petition was filed stating that the land in question has been misused as the same having been reserved for common purpose could not have been handed over to respondent no.4�company.

¶32

In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent no.1, the plea taken was that in pursuance of resolution of respondent no.2 whereby it had been resolved that the land in question could not be put to use because of the laying of Ludhiana�Chandigarh Railway line in the village and the land has been leased out to respondent no.4�company for a period of 31 years @ � 20,000/� per year with an increase of 5% every year in the lease money. Respondent No.4 had also provided its land measuring 1 Kanal 1 Marla for the use of Hadda Rori . The said action was in the overall interest of the Gram Panchayat and its inhabitants and was considered at length and sanction was granted on 13.10.2011. A regular source of income for the Gram Panchayat had been created and an alternative arrangement of Hadda Rori in the village had been made.

¶33

In a separate written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3, it was pleaded that the challenge to the approval was being made after 14 months and on account of construction of Chandigarh�Ludhiana railway line, the passage to the aforesaid Khasra nos. was blocked and the area became non�functional and the land was not being put to any use. Accordingly, the resolution was passed unanimously wherein a decision was taken that the said land would be leased out to respondent no.4�company and it would

¶34

Kumar Pardeep 2013.08.01 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶35

CWP No. 25679 of 2012 �4�

¶36

¶37

be given alternative land comprised in Khasra Nos. 23//4�5 and 24/1/1 measuring 1 Kanals 1 Marla, so that purpose of user was not affected. The whole exercise was done for the benefit of inhabitants of the village and the petitioners were raking up the issue on account of party faction One Teja Singh had filed a Civil Suit wherein no injunction had been granted and the writ had been filed thereafter.

¶38

In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent no.4, the plea taken was that the civil suit had also been filed by the villagers which had been concealed and in the additional affidavit, it has been specifically mentioned that petitioner no.3 Sikander Singh's brother Teja Singh had filed the Civil Suit in which injunction was declined on 20.10.2012. Similar averments were made that the land could not be used by the Gram Panchayat due to the construction of the Railway line and, therefore, alternative land measuring 1 kanal 1 Marla had been provided by the company apart from the lease money which had been paid. The matter had been examined by the State Government while giving proper approval. The Company had also contributed a sum of � 6,50,000/� to the sewerage project of the whole village and the land which was lying unused had been put to a common purpose by the good management of the Gram Panchayat. The registered lease deed had been entered into on 26.10.2012. The company had purchased about 40 acres of land for developing container depot siding so as to give a fillip to the import and export at Ludhiana and necessary permission had been granted by the Ministry of Railway to set up Inland Container Depot. The land in question was required to facilitate the smooth operation of passage to the said inland container depot and the project

¶39

Kumar Pardeep 2013.08.01 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶40

CWP No. 25679 of 2012 �5�

¶41

¶42

would generate the employment opportunity in the vicinity. There was no violation of any rule or provision of the Act. In the additional affidavit, it has further been pleaded that an amount of ��90 crores had been spent by the answering respondent for setting up the project and the copy of CLU granted by the competent authority was appended as Annexure R� 4/13.

¶43

Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the approval granted by the Government was to be as per Rule 6(3) of the Rules. It was accordingly submitted that the land had to be leased out by auction or on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between the parties and same had not been done.

¶44

Counsel for the respondents on the other hand have submitted that it was a case of exchange of land and leasing out a portion which was for the benefits of inhabitants of the village. The State Government had examined the issue at length and granted the approval. There was no illegality or irregularity in the grant of said approval.

¶45

That the relevant Rule 5 and Rule 6(3) of the Rules are

¶46

reproduced below:�

¶47

“ �� !"#�$%�& !'�� (Section 5 and 15(2)(f) of the Act� A Panchayat, if it is of opinion that it is necessary so to do for the benefit of the inhabitants of the village may with the prior approval of the Government, transfer any land in �� by exchange with the land of an equivalent [value].

¶48

�� 

¶49

Kumar Pardeep 2013.08.01 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶50

CWP No. 25679 of 2012 �6�

¶51

¶52

(�� # )#�$�+#�+,� -�.$!�/01��2�� xxx xxx (2) xxx xxx xxx

¶53

(3) All lands vested in a Panchayat may be leased out by auction or on such terms and conditions, as may be agreed upon between the parties up to the period of 33 years for industrial, commercial, educational or professional purposes with the prior approval of the State Government.”

¶54

After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the writ petition. A perusal of the resolution would go on to show that access to the land measuring 2 Kanals 2 Marlas comprised in Khasra No.81 and 82 situated in the revenue estate of village Kanech, Tehsil and District Ludhiana had been closed down due to coming up of Ludhiana�Chandigarh Railway line and, therefore, the land which was reserved for Hadda Rori could not be utilised. As per resolution dated 24.2.2011 (Annexure P�5), the Gram Panchayat opted to take 1 Kanal 1 Marla of land from respondent no.4� company for using it for the same purpose and gave land 2 Kanals 2 Marlas falling in Khasra No.81 and 82 to respondent no.4�company which was setting up Inland Container Depot next to the railway line and had access to the land in question as the railway line of the company would cross through the said land which would be clear from the site plan Annexure R/4/11. Thus, the decision was for the benefit of the respondent no.2�Gram Panchayat, which would get a sum of ��20,000/� per year with 5% enhancement every year. This amount had already been deposited with respondent no.2�Gram Panchayat which is the case of the petitioners itself.

¶55

Kumar Pardeep 2013.08.01 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶56

CWP No. 25679 of 2012 �7�

¶57

¶58

As per Rule 5 of the Rules prior approval of the Government had to be taken for exchange of land. The said approval was granted on 13.10.2011, lease money was received on 22.11.2011 and thereafter registered lease deed was entered into on 26.10.2012. Thus, before entering into the registered lease deed, the prior approval of the Government had already been taken and only thereafter, the land measuring 1 Kanal 1 Marla falling in Khasra Nos. 23//4�5 and 24/1/1 was exchanged in lieu of land in Khasra No.81 and 82.

¶59

Thus, in view of the said, there has been no violation of the Rule 5 or Rule 6(3) of the Rules. The land of the Panchayat could be leased out by auction or on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between the parties for commercial purpose with the prior approval of the State Government which was done before the registered lease deed was entered into and, therefore, the submission of the counsel for the petitioners that there has been no prior approval is without any basis. Rather from the facts it would be clear that respondent no.2�Gram Panchayat has benefited in a manner that for mere 2 Kanals 2 Marlas of land, it is getting ��20,000/� per year along with enhancement of 5% per year apart from getting usage of 1 Kanal 1 Marla of the land of the company. As noticed above, the land in question which is falling in Khasra No.81 and 82 could not have been utilised rather it has gone waste since approach to it had been cut off due to the coming up of the Railway line which would be clear from the site plan Annexure R/4/11. The setting up of Inland Container Depot is also for the benefit of the inhabitants of the village as admittedly a sum of ��6,50,000/� has been deposited with the Guru Gobind Singh Welfare Committee for sewerage

¶60

Kumar Pardeep 2013.08.01 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶61

CWP No. 25679 of 2012 �8�

¶62

¶63

project of the village, which fact is not denied.

¶64

Another aspect which is to be taken into consideration is that there has been concealment on the part of the petitioners on which account also, the present writ petition is not maintainable. Admittedly, injunction had been declined on 20.10.2012 by the Civil Court in the suit filed by some of the residents of the village. The said fact was never brought to the notice of this Court when the writ petition was filed and came up for hearing on 20.12.2012. Admittedly, one of the writ petitioner herein and one of the plaintiffs in the Civil Suit are related as brothers and, therefore, there is substance in the contention of the counsel for respondents no.2 and 3 that the writ petition has been filed on account of party faction in the village.

¶65

Accordingly, keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that exchange/lease of the land is for the benefit of the inhabitants of the village and is not violative of any of the provision/rules and the prior approval has been obtained from the State Government before executing/registering the lease deed.

¶66

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶67

�� (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE

¶68

24.07.2013 (JASBIR SINGH) Pka JUDGE

¶69

Kumar Pardeep 2013.08.01 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Harnek Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harnek Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and 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

Phool Chand Vs State of Haryana & Others

Hoshiar Singh Vs State of Hry. and Ors.

Rang Rao Singh Yadav & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Komal Parkash Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Ashok Kumar Bassi Vs State of Punjab

Pawan Kumar etc. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.