GRAM PANCHAYAT VILLAGE SIHANDAUD Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(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: -

(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.