RAM SARAN DASS Vs. COMMISSIONER AMBALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DOES Section 10-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, apply to a sale or disposition of Panchayat land under Section 5 of the said Act is the only question that falls for determination in his writ petition.

(2.) THE issue above said arises from the following facts which are not in serious dispute. The gram Panchayat, Bhiwan, passed a resolution dated 1st of August, 1967, seeking the sanction of the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon, for the sale of land vested in it in order to raise funds for the construction of an urgently needed high school building (vide annexure R-2 to the written statement ). On the following day, that is, the 2nd of August, 1967, a public auction was held in which the highest bid was given on behalf of respondents Nos. 3 to 7 and Rs. 700/- were paid in advance at the time of auction. Subsequently by a regular deed executed on the 10th of August, 1967, and registered on the following day the 11th of august, 1967 the above said sale was completed. The petitioner who averred himself to be aggrieved by this sale made an application before the Collector gurgoan well-high two years after the execution of the above said registered deed seeking that the same be set aside. This application was specifically made under section 10a of the Act. The collector by his order dated 28th August, 1970, held that there was an infraction of Rule 12 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1961 and also suspecting the sale set aside the same. An appeal was carried to the Commissioner, Ambala Division who by his impugned order dated the 3rd February, 1971, accepted the same holding that no application under Section 10-A was competent before the Collector and therefore set aside his order. He took the view that the only remedy open to the petitioner was under section 6 of the Act of which he had not availed himself. Against the said order the petitioner moved the financial Commissioner, who, however, dismissed the same on the ground that the same was not maintainable. He has now come up by way of this writ petition to impugn the Commissioner's Order, annexure 'c' to the petition.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner forcefully contended that Section 10-A is an independent section which stands by itself and reliance in this regard was placed on the non obstante clause with which this section begins. Counsel argued that the terms of this section are wide enough to include within its ambit a completed sale of immovable property. It was further argued that a sale was only an executed contract of sale was executory and no distinction need be drawn between the two for the purpose of excluding the applicability of Section 10-A. As the contentions of the parties turn primarily on the relevant provisions of the statute, it is now necessary to set down the provisions of Section 5 (1), 6 and 10-A (1):--