Remanded

Gram Panchayat Samalsar v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Sept 2015CWP/18394/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a dispute over asset apportionment among split Gram Panchayats, the High Court set aside an impugned order and directed the Director-cum-Special Secretary to examine factors like cultivable land distribution and mustarka malkan apportionment, deciding all pending petitions via a common order.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 09.02.2015 set aside, and the Revisional Authority directed to pass a common order deciding all pending revision petitions.

Gram Panchayat Samalsar Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.18394 of 2015 Date of Decision: September 02, 2015

¶3

Gram Panchayat Samalsar

¶4

.....Petitioner

¶5

versus

¶6

State of Punjab and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH.

¶9

Present: Mr.Kashish Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.V.K.Sandhir, Advocate, for the caveatorrespondent No.8.

¶10

-.-

¶11

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

¶12

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

¶15

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶16

The controversy pertains to apportionment and distribution of moveable and immovable assets amongst the petitioner (Gram Panchayat, Samalsar) and respondent Nos.5 to 8, namely (i) Gram Panchayat, Kothe Samalsar, (ii) Gram Panchayat, Samalsar Khurd, (iii) Gram Panchayat, Kothe Sangatsar and (iv) Gram Panchayat, G.T.B. Garh. The respondent-Gram-Panchayats have been carved out of the petitioner, who used to be the principal Gram Panchayat.

¶17

The record reveals that instead of the State Government or its delegate performing the duties imposed under Section 3 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the above-mentioned Gram Panchayats resolved amongst themselves and apportioned the shamlat land. Those

¶18

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.09.15 12:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

[2]

¶20

CWP No.18394 of 2015

¶21

resolutions were not given effect under the Rules and for want of approval of Competent Authority, one or the other Gram Panchayat started objecting to that arrangement. The Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Ferozepur, thus recommended the division of shamlat land and other properties vide memo dated 01.04.2015 (P-8) which has been accepted by the Competent Authority. The petitioner-Gram Panchayat felt aggrieved and filed a revision petition which has been dismissed by the Director-cum-Special Secretary, Punjab Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, vide the impugned order dated 09.02.2015 (P-9).

¶22

We are informed that two revision petitions filed by Gram Panchayat, Samalsar Khurd-respondent No.6 and Gram Panchayat, Kothe Sangatsar-respondent No.7 are still pending consideration before the above-stated Revisional Authority.

¶23

If that is so, it appears to us that the inter se dispute amongst five Gram Panchayats ought to have been decided by one and a common order. While doing so, the State Government is obligated to keep in view (i) whether the land comprising mustarka malkan in cultivating possession of the proprietors has been proportionately apportioned? (ii) whether the land already utilized for one or the other common purposes has also been accounted for keeping in view the proportionate share of every Gram Panchayat? and (iii) whether there is an equitable distribution of cultivable land available free from all encumbrances?

¶24

We have no reason to doubt that the Revisional Authority shall take into consideration all such relevant factors

¶25

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.09.15 12:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶26

[3]

¶27

CWP No.18394 of 2015

¶28

while putting its seal of approval to the apportionment of assets.

¶29

For the reasons afore-stated but without expressing any views on the entitlement of the petitionerGram Panchayat, we set-aside the order dated 09.02.2015 and direct the Director-cum-Special Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab, to decide all the revision petitions together by passing a common order. All the Gram Panchayats shall be at liberty to raise their respective claims before the aforesaid Revisional Authority.

Ordered accordingly.

Dasti.

[SURYA KANT] JUDGE

September 02, 2015 [JASPAL SINGH] mohinder JUDGE

¶34

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.09.15 12:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Gram Panchayat Samalsar v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gram Panchayat Samalsar 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

Joginder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Hukam Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Gram Panchayat, Manawala Khurd Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Hardarshan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Dalbir and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Kapil Kumar Vs State of Punjab & Anr.