SURAJ BHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 15.9.1997 (Annexure P10) passed by the Commissioner & Secretary to Government of Haryana, Development and Panchayat Department (respondent No. 1) vide which sanction has been accorded to the Gram Panchayat of village Wazirabad (respondent No. 2) to exchange 75 Bighas and 14 Biswas of land with the land of the same size belonging to respondent Nos. 3 to 8.

(2.) IN brief the facts of the case are that the Gram Panchayat of Village Wazirabad (respondent No. 2) (hereinafter referred to as the Gram Panchayat) passed a resolution dated 29.6.1991 (Annexure P1) whereby it resolved to exchange its 139 Bighas 12 Biswas of land with the land of M/s Vikalpa Agro Industries and other sister concerns (respondent Nos. 3 to 8). Some residents of the village headed by Sher Singh Yadav did not relish the exchange. They represented to the Government vide representation dated 15.11.1991 (Annexure P2) for not according the requisite sanction as the exchange of the land with the land of respondent Nos. 3 to 8 was not in the interest of the inhabitants of the village. However, necessary approval was accorded to the Gram Panchayat vide order dated 31.12.1991/2.1.1992 (Annexure R1) under Rule 5 of the Punjab Village Common Lands). While granting permission certain conditions, which were considered essential, were imposed. Accordingly the land measuring 75 Bighas 14 Biswas was exchanged with the land belonging to respondent Nos. 3 to 8 and mutation was sanctioned on 27.3.1992. However, certain residents of the village impugned the exchange, filed a civil suit in the Court of Additional Senior Sub Judge, Gurgaon, for seeking cancellation of the exchange ordered by the Government vide order dated 31.12.1991. Status quo was ordered vide order dated 16.2.1993. However, the status quo order was vacated by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon vide order dated 22.2.1993. The revision petition filed by the petitioners against the vacation of the status quo order was converted into Civil Writ Petition No. 3511 of 1994 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Jhanji, and the exchange of the land made by the Gram Panchayat was cancelled vide judgment dated 3.3.1994 (Annexure P4). Against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, respondent Nos. 3 to 8 filed L.P.A. No. 239 of 1994. The L.P.A. Bench vide judgment dated 16.2.1996 remitted the matter of exchange to the Government for reconsideration and accord approval, if any, after strict compliance of the provisions of Rule 5 of the Rules. However, during the pendency of the L.P.A. before the High Court the Gram Panchayat passed a fresh resolution dated 25.10.1994 (Annexure P5) whereby it resolved to sell the land in question in open auction and not to exchange the same with a land belonging to respondent Nos. 3 to 8. The Gram Panchayat once again passed a resolution on 30.5.1997 whereby it cancelled the resolution dated 25.10.1994 (Annexure P5) and instead the resolution dated 29.6.1991 was (Annexure P1) revived. Consequently, the Gram Panchayat once again agreed to exchange the village land with the land belonging to respondent Nos. 3 to 8 and a copy thereof was forwarded to the Government for according necessary sanction thereto. After hearing the parties concerned, sanction of the Governor of Haryana to the exchange of the land in question with the land belonging to respondent Nos. 3 to 8 was accorded vide order dated 15.9.1997 (Annexure P10). It is this order of the Government of Haryana which has been challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) IT has been contended by Mr. Hemant Bassi, learned counsel for the petitioners, that respondent No. 1 has passed the order dated 15.9.1997 in hurry and sufficient opportunity of being heard has not been given to the petitioners before passing the said order. It has been contended that the petitioners had filed an application dated 26.6.1997 against the latest resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 30.5.1997 before the Director of Panchayat (respondent No. 9). The said respondent had directed the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon, to inquire into the allegations made in the application. The District Development and Panchayat Officer, Gurgaon (D.D.P.O.) was also directed to examine the resolution dated 30.5.1997 passed by the Gram Panchayat with regard to the provisions of Section 47 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. It has further been contended that the petitioners had submitted written submissions before respondent No. 1. Without considering the written submissions made by the petitioners, respondent No. 1 passed the impugned order dated 15.9.1997. It has also been contended by Mr. Bassi that exchange of the land with the land belonging to respondent Nos. 3 to 8 is not in the interest of the inhabitants of the village. This fact stands proved from the resolutions dated 9.3.1992 (Annexure P3) and 25.10.1994 (Annexure P5) passed by the Gram Panchayat.