CIVIL APPEAL 19457of 2005 on 30 July 2001

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh......

C.W.P. No. 19457of 2005 Date of decision:.11-2-2008

Kaka Singh .....Petitioner

Vs.The State of Punjab and others .....Respondents....

Coram:Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S.GarewalHon'ble Ms. Justice Daya Chaudhary K.S.GAREWAL, J.

Kaka Singh petitioner was owner of khasra No. 3//21/2(6-6) inBad Majra, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar. He wanted to exchange this landwith Gram Panchayat because there was a drain outside his boundary wall.The drain was in panchayat land which was a path and damage was beingcaused to his wall and gate by the said drain.

The petitioner applied to Tehsildar, Mohali for determination ofthe value of the two parcels of land, which were to be exchanged. Tehsildardetermined the value at Rs.15 lacs per acre. Gram Panchayat passedresolution on January 10, 2000 agreeing to exchange the land. The

petitioner has referred to Rule 5 of the Punjab Village Common Land(Regulation) Rules, 1964 regarding exchange of land. Exchange of landunder this Rule was permitted if the panchayat was of the opinion that it wasnecessary for the benefit of the inhabitants of the village and prior approvalof the Government is also taken. After a great deal of correspondence theproposal submitted by the panchayat was accepted by the Governor and theexchange of land was allowed. This order is Annexure P-5 dated July 30,2001.

After 2 years one Ujjagar Singh and two others complained thatthe petitioner's son Gurmeet Singh was a member of the panchayat whichhad got the land exchanged, by concealing his own personal interest. Aninquiry was conducted and on its basis an order was passed by theGovernment on October 20, 2005 Annexure P-6 cancelling the earlierapproval granted by the Governor vide Annexure P-5.

The petitioner has challenged the order Annexure P-6 byasserting that there was no misrepresentation or fraud on his part. He had infact parted with double the land of superior quality, the inquiry against himhad been conducted behind his back. The cancellation of the approvalgranted was illegal.

Notice of motion was issued to the respondents who put inappearance. The Gram Panchayat appeared and filed a written statementstating that the exchange was in public interest, the matter had been dulyconsidered by the panchayat and no loss was caused to the interest of thepanchayat. The complaint against the petitioner had been a motivated one.The contents of the petition were admitted and it was prayed that the writpetition be allowed.

However, Sukhwinder Singh and three others, who had beenimpleaded as respondents No.6 to 9 on May 12, 2006, contested thepetitioner's case and opposed the exchange of land. They pleaded that theyhad made a complaint on November 12, 2003 against the exchange allegingthat it had been got approved by the petitioner's son Gurmeet Singh who waa member of the Panchayat.

The substance of the private respondents' objection was that theexchange would lead to the width of the path getting reduced and wouldalso cause unnecessary problems to the villagers.

On July 26, 2007 a direction was passed by this Courtappointing a Local Commissioner to locate the two parcels of lands whichwere to be exchanged and to see if the exchange was going to cause anyhurdle or hindrance to the flow of traffic or movement of people.

The Local Commissioner reported that the exchange would notcause any such hurdle or hindrance. On the other hand, if the road waspaved/metalled by the Gram Panchayat, it shall further facilitate themovement of traffic from all sides. The Local Commissioner furnished adetailed report after inspecting the spot, locating the two plots which wereproposed to be exchanged, joining the sarpanch and respondents No. 6 to 9at the time of spot inspection. The Local Commissioner had also attachedphotographs of the plot and the various locations of the views from thedifferent angles.

We find that the report of the Local Commissioner is anextremely thorough and detailed report. He found that the exchange was notcausing any hurdle or hindrance to the flow of the traffic or movement ofthe people. Therefore, we accept the report of the Local Commissioner. We

are also of the view that the exchange would benefit the panchayat becausethe panchyat would get double the land in exchange and would be able touse this land to widen the road at the spot. Consequently this petition is allowed. Order Annexure P-6 ishereby set aside and order Annexure P-5 is restored.

( K.S.GAREWAL) JUDGE

(DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE

February 11, 2008RSK

NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not?