GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER FEROZEPUR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Ferozepur, dated July 24, 1981 (Annexure P. 6) under Section 10 -A(7) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short, the Act), the following factual matrix is not in dispute.

(2.) IN pursuance of a scheme known as 'Integrated Rural Development Programme', the State Government decided to establish a focal point in village Tibbi Khurd, forming part of the area of the Petitioner Gram Panchayat. Since in order to implement the scheme the Government wanted the Panchayat to provide a suitable site close to a metalled road free of compensation, the Petitioner as also the Block Development and Panchayat Officer approached various landowners of the village having lands adjoining to a Pacca road for exchanging that land with the land of the Panchayat. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 conjointly swore an affidavit on October 28, 1978, offering their land along the road to be exchanged with the land of the Panchayat. The details of the land offered are duly mentioned in this affidavit; copy of which is Annexure P 2. Vide resolution dated November 15, 1978 (copy Annexure P. 3), the Petitioner Panchayat resolved to exchange its land with that of various landowners including the above noted Respondents and for this purpose approached the Collector, Ferozepur, to accord the necessary. approval to the exchange. The Collector, - -vide his letter, dated November 22, 1978 (Annexure P. 4) conveyed his sanction in terms of Rule 5 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 as amended in 1978. With the completion of the formalities of this exchange a number of focal point buildings, such as, Grain Market, Co -operative Bank, Civil Hospital, Veterinary Hospital, offices of the Agriculture Inspector, Cooperative Societies, residential quarters of the staff, godowns for storage of bags to the extent of 50,000, Post Office, Water Supply Scheme and Petrol Pump, etc. were constructed on the land along the road at a fabulous cost of lacs of rupees. The above -named three Respondents, realising the potentiality their exchanged land had gained, moved an Application under Section 10 -A of the Act before the Collector, Ferozepur, with the assertion that the above -noted exchange was not only violative of the provisions of the Act and the Rules, but they had been defrauded too in entering into that exchange with the Petitioner Panchayat. They, wanted the nullifying of the exchange and restoration of the possession of their land to them. The Collector on enquiry found no substance in these allegations of these Respondent sand dismissed their, application. However, on appeal under Sub -section (7) of this section, the Additional Commissioner, Ferozepur, as already indicated, set aside this order and directed the Petitioner to surrender possession of certain part of the land (on which according to the Additional Commissioner no construction, had been raised) to these Respondents. For passing this order the Additional Commissioner recorded these two conclusions:

(3.) SO far as the second conclusion of the Additional Commissioner is concerned, the same besides being conjectural is based on straining of the facts available on record. It is no doubt true that the land surrendered by the Respondents was almost double to the one they got from the Panchayat, yet it was found by the Collector and also is so depicted by the revenue record that it was inferior in quality to the one they got in exchange. As per averments in paragraph 4 of this petition, the Khasra Girdawari Register shows that these Respondents could not raise any Kharif crop in this land with effect from the year 1975 on account of its being Kallar infested. The land which had been surrendered by the Panchayat to these Respondents was Nehri land and was much more productive than the land it got in exchange from the Respondents. Otherwise also, it is not clear as to on account of what suppression of facts or material the Respondents stood defrauded. As already indicated, they had sworn an affidavit on October 28, 1978 offering their land in exchange to that of the Panchayat. Nothing but greed appears to be the motivating force behind their claim. Anyway, I find, this conclusion of the Additional Commissioner as totally unsustainable.