Judgment:
Civil Writ Petition No.17897 o”
1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Date of decision:
02. 04.2103 1.
Civil Writ Petition No.17897 of 2012 Manjit Singh .......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents 2.
Civil Writ Petition No.17894 of 2012 Bakshish Singh ........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rajive Bhalla Hon'ble MRS.Justice Rekha Mittal -.- Present: Mr.Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Nilesh Bhardwaj, DAG,Punjab for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 Mr.B S Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.5 -.- 1.
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.”
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?.”
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.
Rekha Mittal, J.
By way of this order, we shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.17894 and 17897 of 2012 as they involve adjudication of common questions of law and facts.
However, for the sake of convenience, facts are Civil Writ Petition No.17897 o”
2. being taken from CWP No.17897 of 2012.
The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing order dated 28.06.2010, passed by the Director Rural Development Panchayat (exercising the powers of Commissioner under the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961, dismissing the petitioners appeal and ordering their eviction.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that the land, in dispute, is in possession of the petitioners since long and petitioner, Manjit Singh has constructed a school on the land in his possession.
The Gram Panchayat has accepted the deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- from each of the petitioners towards value of the land, assessed by the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, in pursuance of a process, initiated by the District Development and Panchayat Officer, in view of order dated 26.11.2012 passed by the Collector while disposing of Gram Panchayat's application for eviction of the petitioneRs.The Gram Panchayat is, therefore, estopped from filing an appeal against order dated 26.11.2002 or alleging that the petitioners are in unauthorized possession or asserting that as the Gram Panchayat has not obtained approval from the State Government, as required by Rule 12 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1964 Rules').the order passed by the Collector is illegal.
It is further argued that the appeal was filed after inordinate delay.
Counsel for the Gram Panchayat submits that the petitioners have no right, title or interest and, therefore, cannot perpetuate their illegal possession on the land, in dispute, admittedly owned by the Gram Panchayat.
The doctrine of estoppel cannot be invoked against the Gram Panchayat as the mandatory procedure prescribed by law, for transfer of Civil Writ Petition No.17897 o”
3. Gram Panchayat land, under the 1964 Rules, was not followed.
Admittedly, the land in dispute, vests in the Gram Panchayat.
The petitioners contention that failure of the Gram Panchayat to obtain approval from the State Government as provided under Rule 12 of the 1964 Rules, estops it from alleging the petitioners to be in unauthorized possession of the land, in dispute, cannot be accepted.
Rule 12 of the 1964 Rules requires the Gram Panchayat to obtain previous approval of the State Government to sell land in shamilat deh, vested in it.
The Gram Panchayat is required to prepare a proposal to sell the land in shamilat deh after a resolution is passed by majority of 3/4th of its members and then forward the same to the Government along with a copy of resolution for necessary approval.
Admittedly, the procedure prescribed under the 1964 Rules for transfer of land, which is mandatory in nature, has not been followed.
The violation of the rules does not entitle the petitioners to invoke the doctrine of estoppel against the Gram Panchayat.
Reference in this context may be made to a Full Bench decision of this Court in 'Kesar Singh and another v.
State of Punjab through its Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab and another' 2012 (3) RCR (Civil).In this case, while dealing with a similar controveRs.in the context of doctrine of estoppel, it was held that if statutory provisions prescribed for transfer of land are violated, the Gram Panchayat cannot be estopped from alleging that the person in possession is in unauthorized occupation.
The Gram Panchayat never mooted any proposal for sale of the land, in dispute, in favour of the petitioneRs.However, the Collector, in its order, while disposing of the application of the Gram Panchayat seeking eviction of the petitioneRs.recorded certain observations which are extracted Civil Writ Petition No.17897 o”
4. herein below:- “Keeping in view the public interest, the respondent is evicted from land belonging to Panchayat.
It is communicated to Gram Panchayat that in case Gram Panchayat desires so, it may sell out the land in dispute to respondent by getting approval from government as per the rules and getting assessed the market value of said land.
In case respondent failed to deposit the price of land with Gram Panchayat within a period of two months from receipt of the approval, he will be considered to be expelled.
Order pronounced.
Case file be consigned to records.”
Thereafter, certain letters were exchanged between the official respondents with regard to assessment of value of the land.
The Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar assessed the market value of the land and the petitioners deposited Rs.1,00,000/- each in the name of Gram Panchayat, Naurangabad.
It is apparent that the Gram Panchayat never initiated any proposal for sale of the land, in dispute much less a resolution having been passed after following the prescribed procedure or forwarding the same to the Govt.
for approval.
As the Gram Panchayat never took any decision to sell the land, in dispute, in favour of the petitioneRs.there is no merit in the contention of the petitioners that the Gram Panchayat is estopped from recovering possession of the land, in dispute, or alleging that the petitioners are in unauthorized occupation thereof.
The mere fact that the petitioners deposited Rs.1,00,000/- each in the account of the Gram Panchayat, is not sufficient to invoke the doctrine of estoppel to prohibit the Gram Panchayat from recovering possession of the land, in dispute, enjoyed by the Civil Writ Petition No.17897 o”
5. petitioneRs.without any right, title, interest or authority.
In view of what has been stated here-in-above, the impugned order is affirmed and the writ petitions are dismissed.
However, as petitioner, Manjit Singh has raised construction of a school, liberty is granted to the petitioners to approach the Gram Panchayat by way of filing an appropriate application under Rule 12 of the 1964 Rules.
In case, such an application is filed, it shall be considered and decided, in accordance with law, within three months.
The official respondents are, however, directed to ensure that eviction of petitioner Manjit Singh from the land, i.e., site of the school does not adversely affect the children, if any, studying in the school.
No order as to costs.
(Rekha Mittal) Judge (Rajive Bhalla) Judge 02.04.2013 mohan