KISHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KISHAN Singh and three others, the petitioners herein, hailing from village Shampura, Tehsil and District Ropar, without pleading they were also proprietor of the village and their land was subjected to pro rata cut to carve out a chunk of land for common purposes, have filed this petition challenging resolution dated 2.12.1999, resolving to gift land measuring 108 Kanals to Sant Baba Maan Singh Charitable Trust, this sixth respondent herein, as also order dated 9.4.2001 vide which the Government accorded sanction to the resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 2.12.1999. They have also, called in question resolution dated 17.4.2001 gifting further piece of 30 kanals of Shamlat land to the same very respondent.

(2.) BRIEF facts, as have been projected in the present petition are that consolidation proceedings were carried out in village Shampura and land measuring 157 kanals was reserved for Pasture, Toba, Hada Rori, Than Mala Rani etc. Jamabandi for the year 1995 -96, Annexure P1, has been relied upon to state that the land was provided for common purposes after applying pro rata cut on the holdings of the proprietors of the village. For the same purpose, reliance has also been placed on the consolidation proceedings. Annexure P2, dated 3.5.1952. It is then pleaded that the Gram Panchayat, Shampura, the fifth respondent herein, passed resolution gifting 108 kanals of Shamlat land to the sixth respondent to establish academy. The land proposed to be gifted, it is further pleaded, is Pasture (Charand) carved out after applying pro rata cut on the holdings of the proprietors. Aggrieved by the resolution aforesaid the petitioners made representation, Annexure P4 dated 6.1.2000, mentioning therein that the land is being gifted to the sixth respondent for establishing academy/college, although many institutions, Government as well as private, were already in existence within a radius of one Kilometer from the village. Representation, Annexure P4 was followed by representations, Annexure P5 and P6, dated 8.8.2000 and 28.2.2001, respectively. The Government, it is then pleaded, granted the sanction for gifting 78 kanals of land to the sixth, respondent vide order. Annexure P7 dated 4.4.2001. In the close vicinity of the sanction order, Annexure P7, the fifth respondent passed by another resolution, Annexure P8, dated 17.4.2001, gifting 30 kanals of Shamlat land to the same very respondent. Even though, it is pleaded, the earlier resolution, Annexure P3, pertains to 108 kanals of land whereas sanction was accorded to gift only 78 kanals. Resolution, An -nexure P3, order, Annexure P7 and subsequent resolution, Annexure P8, have been stated to be illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional primarily on the ground that the land in question was carved out after applying pro rata cut on the holdings of the proprietors of the village during the consolidation proceedings and by virtue of Section 23A of the Consolidation Act, such land would vest in the Gram Panchayat for managerial purposes whereas, the proprietors shall continue to be owners of the land. The other ground challenging the resolutions and the order, as referred to above, is that there was no necessity for establishing an educational academy/college when there were so many such like institutions already existing in the close vicinity of the land, subject matter of dispute. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, three sets of written statements, one on behalf of respondents 1 to 4, another by respondent No. 5 and yet another by respondent No. 6, have been filed seriously opposing the cause of the petitioners. Objections raised in the written statements filed on behalf of different respondents, as mentioned above, are similar. Reference to the pleadings made in the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 6 is only being made so that the judgment is not unnecessarily burdened. It has, inter -alia, been pleaded in the written statement field on behalf of respondent No. 6 that the petition is misconceived and malafide and has been filed by withholding complete and true facts. Before filing the present petition, it is pleaded, co -villagers filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the Gram Panchayat challenging the same transfer on the very same allegations. In fact, one of the plaintiffs is real brother of petitioner No. 1 herein. The Civil suit was filed as far back as on 12.1.2000 in the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ropar. When the plaintiffs in the said suit could find no way to obtain any relief, they got it dismissed as having become infructuous stating before the Court that the land had already been transferred and construction had already been carried out. They had the opportunity to amend the plant as it was only a subsequent event and continue with it. However, as mentioned above, they withdrew the suit. It is then pleaded that the present petition has been filed after a long gap when the civil suit aforesaid had been filed, which was well within the knowledge of the petitioners and filing of civil suit was purposely not disclosed to this Court while filing the present petition. It is then pleaded that challenge is to the transfer of Banjar Quadim land by the Gram Panchayat vide its resolution dated 21.12.1999, sanctioned by the Government on 4.4.2001, wherein huge school building has already come up with about 400 students on board. The students from the village are even being given free education. The land was Banjar Quadim since consolidation and yielding very meagre income to the Gram Panchayat by sale of wild reeds. Resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat is stated to be unanimous consistent with the demand of the whole village and Government in Local Self Government Department, after examining viability and benefit of the project, in the interest of the welfare of the village community, granted sanction for donation of the land vide order dated 4.4.2001. The petitioners, it is stated, have failed to show any damages suffered by him. It is then pleaded that the conception of common purpose stands changed with modern times and donation of part of Shamlat land for urgent need of modern education to the residents of the village cannot be said to be inconsistent with the purpose of reservation of this land, namely, welfare of its residents, in one form or the other, with change or times. This village stands converted into a town and establishment of this prestigious institution has not only raised the value of the property of this village but cluster of the villages all around. Insofar as, assertions of the petitioners pertaining to the land being not owned by the Gram Panchayat, being not Shamlat Deh is concerned, it has been pleaded that the land was reserved as Pasture (Charand) and it was carved out of holdings of the proprietors and that being so, the proprietors could not be the owners of the land. The property is Shamlat Deh, i.e., belonging to whole of the village vesting with the Gram Panchayat as representative of the entire village community. Out of total Shamlat land of 142 kanals 8 marlas, only 78 kanals is sought to be used in the present case for a public purpose, namely, establishment of an idea ultra modern educational academy in which the students particularly of this village, would be trained in educational system for modern needs to compete with urbanised studies in model schools. Lacs of rupees have been spent on building and infrastructure and also on modern instruments in the Science Block just gratis by Baba Maan Singh -a Saint. The builder, it is further stated, has no personal interest in it. The academy, it is stated, sponsored and controlled by Baba Maan Singh, A Saint, devoted to service and welfare of such academies, spending crores of rupees coming as donations from his disciples and followers, with no personal benefit to him in any form. The names of few of his welfare activities have been mentioned as under: -

(3.) IT is then pleaded that present litigation is sponsored in nature since the replying respondent has undertaken to impart free education to the children of this very village. There are about 5 to 6 private schools around this village, who are zealous of its progress and development. Now after the construction of primary wing, the villages have withdrawn their children from these conventional schools and sent them to this academy. These private schools are now apprehending that with the construction of middle and matric wing of this academy, their schools may suffer irreparable set back. It is then pleaded that the petitioners have acquiesced in the construction of the building of the academy, as they kept quiet when the construction was in progress.