MAHAVIR S.CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) BY way of the instant Letters Patent Appeal Gram Panchayat Village Sihandaud, Block Dehlon, District Ludhiana, has assailed order dated 21.07.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No.16922 of 2008.
(2.) FACTUAL matrix giving rise to the instant Letters Patent Appeal indicates that village Sihandaud was selected by Punjab Government for construction of Focal Point under different development schemes but while constructing the Purchase Centre, land of some private persons, including respondent No.5 -Mukhtiar Singh, was utilized by the Government. The Village Panchayat, vide resolution dated 20.02.2001 (Annexure P -1), resolved to give land measuring 13 Biswas 07 Biswasian of Panchayat land to him. However, on election of a new Panchayat, another resolution dated 28.09.2004 was passed by the Panchayat annulling the earlier resolution dated 20.02.2001 because the exchange was found by the Village Panchayat not to be for the benefit of the Panchayat. The resolution dated 28.09.2004 was forwarded by Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Dehlon to District Development and Panchayat Officer, Ludhiana, who, vide memorandum dated 18.01.2005, recommended annullment of resolution dated 20.02.2001 to the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Officer, Chandigarh, who, vide order dated 24.05.2006 (Annexure P -7), accepted the recommendation of District Development and Panchayat Officer and annulled resolution dated 20.02.2001 by observing as under: - "The Resolution dated 20.2.2001 which was passed by the Gram Panchayat, the same was passed for the exchange of land measuring 0 -13 -17 out of the total land 1 -0 -0 from Khasra No.1126/1 of Sh. Ravinder Singh and Harinder Singh sons of Sh. Sukhdev Singh and Nachhatar Kaur wife of Harmel Singh equal shares residents of village Dallanwal with 0 -13 -07 "Pukhta" land out of total area of 1 -13 -15 of Shamlat land of Panchayat in Khasra No.1171. The land which has been given by Sh. Ravinder Singh and Harinder Singh in exchange as per the Resolution, the same has been given for constructing the "Pukka Far" of Focal Point has not been constructed there. Rather the land is lying vacant. The land of Panchayat is lying adjoining of the "far" which is given on lease/rent (Chakota) and is in possession of the Panchayat. The land which is of the Panchayat, is situated at a distance of about 4 -5 Km from the "Far" of Focal Point on main road which leads to Sihan Daud. There is lot of difference of market value of these lands. As per this resolution, the case of exchange has not been sent to the Govt. for approval and neither any such approval has been granted. Under the garb of this resolution, Sh. Ravinder Singh and Harinder Singh sons of Sh. Sukhdev Singh has taken illegal possession of Panchayat land in Khasra No.1171/1, whereas the land owned by them in Khasra No.1126/1 is lying vacant. This way the Resolution dated 20.02.2001 passed by the Gram Panchayat for the exchange of land, is not in the public interest but the same has been passed in order to favour some special individual. Therefore, this resolution, not being in the interest of public, is not liable to be maintainable. Therefore, I, Parkash Singh Lamhe, Joint Director conferred by virtue of Notification No.0/22/P.A./S.2/2005 dated 4.10.2005, quash the resolution dated 20.2.2001 not being in the public interest, passed by the Gram Panchayat Sihan Daud, Tehsil Payal, Block Dehlon, District Fatehgarh Sahib (it should be in fact Ludhiana), under Section 199(1) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994." Respondent No.4 challenged order dated 24.05.2006 before Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Rural Development and Panchayats, exercising the powers of Government, who vide order dated 28.05.2008 reversed the order dated 24.05.2006 of District Development and Panchayat Officer, quashed the resolution dated 28.09.2004 and restored the one passed on 20.02.2001. Members of newly constituted Panchayat brought Civil Writ Petition No.16922 of 2008 to challenge order dated 28.05.2008 (Annexure P - 8). The learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 21.07.2010 disposed of the Civil Writ Petition by observing as under: - "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the prayer of the petitioners to enforce a particular resolution cannot be granted. The observation that no resolution was given effect to without prior approval of the Government has some merit, more so when no record has been shown by the respondent -State that any approval was granted to give effect to such a resolution. There is, in fact, no infirmity in the order of the Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab, but the resolution observed above cannot be given effect to without compliance of Section 85 of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondent -State has stated that the provisions under Section 85 of the Act do not cover the exchange of land. I am of the opinion that the contention of learned counsel for the State is without any merit. The exchange of a land necessarily involves acquisition and disposal of certain land which belongs to the Gram Panchayat. The contention therefore has to be rejected. The writ petition is dismissed, however, with the observation that the resolution which has been approved by the order of the Secretary can be given effect to by granting the necessary approval of the State Government."
(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record including the impugned order. It is argued on behalf of the appellant -Village Panchayat that exchange of the land of the Panchayat with that of private persons was not approved by the competent authority within the meaning of Section 85 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1994 Act') and even otherwise, it is not in the interest of the Village Panchayat. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Single Judge has failed to take note of this very material aspect. However, on behalf of respondent No.5 it has been argued that the Focal Point is constructed for the benefit of the entire village populace and, as such, the exchange cannot be said to be prejudicial to the rights of the Village Panchayat and, even otherwise, the exchange has been accepted by the Government by passing order dated 28.05.2008. Nothing more has been urged on either side.;