Skip to content


Surya Kant J. (Oral) Vs. Gram Panchayat Village Badali .....Petitioner - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Decided On

Appellant

Surya Kant J. (Oral)

Respondent

Gram Panchayat Village Badali .....Petitioner

Excerpt:


.....the acquired land was shamlat deh vested in it and the proprietors have no right whatsoever to seek compensation for that land. reference is made to an order dated 28.10.2010 (annexure p- 6) passed under the punjab village common lands (regulation) act, 1961 whereby the competent court has held that the subject land vests in the gram panchayat. having heard learned counsel for the petitioner- gram panchayat, we find from one of the impugned orders cwp no.13324 of 2013 [2].dated 4.8.2010 (annexure p-5) that the petitioner-gram panchayat had earlier submitted its objections before the executing court but those objections were not pursued and were rejected in default, allegedly due to fraudulent collusion of the sarpanch and panches of the gram panchayat who are statedly beneficiaries of the impugned orders.if that is so and if any fraud has been committed, the gram panchayat through its administrator would be well within its right to move an application before the executing court and seek modification/recalling of the impugned order. with this clarification, the writ petition stands disposed of at this stage. dasti. (surya kant) judge july 01, 2013 (surinder gupta) mohinder judge

Judgment:


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13324 of 2013 Date of Decision : July 01, 2013 Gram Panchayat Village Badali .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA.

Present : Mr.Amrik Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

-.- 1.

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

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?.”

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

--- Surya Kant, J.

(Oral) The Gram Panchayat of village Badali, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar Mohali is aggrieved by the Award dated 8.1.2007 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Additional District Judge, Ropar as well as the order dated 4.8.2010 (Annexure P-5) passed by the same Court directing the release of compensation to the proprietors of the village.

The grievance of the Gram Panchayat is that the acquired land was shamlat deh vested in it and the proprietors have no right whatsoever to seek compensation for that land.

Reference is made to an order dated 28.10.2010 (Annexure P- 6) passed under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 whereby the competent Court has held that the subject land vests in the Gram Panchayat.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner- Gram Panchayat, we find from one of the impugned orders CWP No.13324 of 2013 [2].dated 4.8.2010 (Annexure P-5) that the petitioner-Gram Panchayat had earlier submitted its objections before the Executing Court but those objections were not pursued and were rejected in default, allegedly due to fraudulent collusion of the Sarpanch and Panches of the Gram Panchayat who are statedly beneficiaries of the impugned ordeRs.If that is so and if any fraud has been committed, the Gram Panchayat through its Administrator would be well within its right to move an application before the Executing Court and seek modification/recalling of the impugned order.

With this clarification, the writ petition stands disposed of at this stage.

Dasti.

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE July 01, 2013 (SURINDER GUPTA) Mohinder JUDGE




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //