JUG LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Jug Lal, resident of village Mithathal, Tehsil and District Bhiwani, claiming himself to be a co-sharer in the shamlat land of the village, is aggrieved against an action of the Gram Panchayat, Mithathal, whereby it sold and exchanged some land owned by it to the large number of private respondents arrayed herein. The main grievance is that, being a resident of the village, he has been deprived of the common user thereof. He maintains that the action of the Panchayat was not in accordance with law and, in particular, Rule 12 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, as applicable to the State of Haryana.

(2.) The petitioner avers that, vide resolution dated 24.4.1975 (Annexure P-1), the Panchayat resolved to sell small pieces of land so that its income may be utilized for development works in the village. According to the petitioner, it was signed by six out of nine Panches and it did not have the requisite three-fourths majority as required under rule 12. Furthermore, the petitioner avers that when the resolution was given the approval by the State Government, the auction was not held properly inasmch as due publicity had not been given by the Deputy Commissioner and, in this manner, the panchayat had been made a loser and indirectly the petitioner. Lastly, it is averred that when he took the matter in application to the Collector (the Deputy Commissioner) under Rule 34 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Rules, 1965, the Collector did not pass a speaking order and perfunctorily dismissed the application terming it as revision, vide his order dated 26.6.1978 (Annexure P-6).

(3.) Return has been filed on behalf of the private respondents Nos. 3 and 4. It is categorically countered that the petitioner has made mis-statements and concealed material facts by supplying wrong documents. Particular mention was made to Annexure P-1, the resolution dated 24.4.1975. It was averred that seven Panches had signed the resolution. It was claimed that Annexure P-1 was an incomplete document and rather Annexure R-1 was the true copy of the resolution. Similarly, it was claimed that Annexure P-4, the resolution regarding auction, was also an incomplete document and Annexure R-2 dated 12.1.1977 was the complete document. It was pointed out that, in that resolution Annexure R-2, the presence of the petitioner signified by his thumb impression is also mentioned and it is further mentioned that proclamation had been made in the entire village and proceedings had been conducted in the presence of all the villagers who assembled for the purpose. It was countered that the petitioner had misled the Court. So far as the order dated 26.6.1972 (Annexure P.6) of the Collector was concerned, it was countered that it was a proper order passed by him after he had noted the contentions of the respective parties.