GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. DIRECTOR LAND RECORDS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Gram is the petitioner. It is aggrieved by the order dated January 25, 1995, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P -2 with the writ petition. By this order, the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, has accepted a petition Under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 filed by respondents 3 to 8. The contention of the respondents 3 to 8 that the action of the authorities under the Act in reserving 831 kanals 2 marks of land for common purposes by imposing a pro rata cut on the land holders was violative of Rule 16, has been accepted. The petitioner questions the validity of this order.

(2.) THE solitary contention raised by Mr. Bhajan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Director has acted illegally in passing this order. Is it so ? It is pat to notice the provision of Rule 16(ii). It provides as under: -

(3.) A perusal of the above rule shows that land can be reserved for the Village Panchayat and other common purposes Under Section 18(c) only when there is no shamlat deh land or such land is considered inadequate. The purpose is obvious. If shamlat deh land is available, it should be used for common purposes. In case, it is found to be inadequate, land can be reserved out of the common pool for the benefit of the village community. However, the reservation shall be only to the extent it is necessary. In a case, where adequate shamlat deh land is available, the land holders cannot be deprived of their property.