CWP challenging exchange of land between petitioner Gram Panchayat and a private company. Court denied interference as exchange was consented to and completed, leaving remedies available if the company obstructs land enjoyment.
The appeal to interfere with the exchange order and mutation was rejected.
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 AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.353 of 2015 Date of Decision: January 09, 2015
Gram Panchayat, Village Fatehgarh .....Petitioner versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH.
Present:Mr.S.P.Chahar, Advocate, for the petitioner.
-.-
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
The Gram Panchayat of village Fatehgarh, Tehsil Tauru, District Mewat, challenges an order dated 8.7.2009 (Annexure P-2) and consequential mutation No.778 dated 12.08.2009. Vide the first order, the exchange of land measuring 1 kanal 4 marla between the petitioner-Gram Panchayat and respondent No.3-M/s N.D.R. Ware Housing Private Limited, was approved by the then Director, Consolidations, Haryana. The order approving the exchange would speak in volume that no prejudice was caused to the Gram Panchayat and the decision was taken in public interest with the consent of the Gram Panchayat.
It may be true that this Court in exercise of public interest jurisdiction, vide order dated 06.09.2012 passed in a bunch of cases (Annexure P-4), found some of the orders of the Director, Consolidations, approving exchange of land of
MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.01.13 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
[2]
CWP No.353 of 2015
Gram Panchayat with the land of colonizers, per se illegal and detrimental to the interest of Gram Panchayats. Nonetheless, those directions were issued at the instance of residents of the villages who questioned the legality or bonafide of the action of their Gram Panchayats. Here is a case where the previous Gram Panchayat to which the petitioner has succeeded, consented to the exchange. The exchange has already been given effect and the Company is already using the Gram Panchayat land as a part of its land-holding after giving equivalent land to the Gram Panchayat which is now owned by the petitioner-Gram Panchayat.
Suffice to observe that if there is any obstruction or impediment caused by respondent No.3 in enjoyment of the land given to the petitioner-Gram Panchayat in exchange, the petitioner has got an effective remedy in law to enforce that exchange. We thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order at this stage.
Dismissed.
[SURYA KANT]
January 09, 2015 [RAJ MOHAN SINGH] Mohinder JUDGE
MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.01.13 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
Gram Panchayat, Village Fatehgarh
State of Haryana
M/s N.D.R. Ware Housing Private Limited
Surya Kant
Raj Mohan Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
