LAWS(P&H)-1986-3-65

GURDIAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On March 27, 1986
GURDIAL SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners claim that they along that they along with others are the owners of land in village Mansa Kalan and are co-sharers of Shamilat Deh of the village. This land was either vested in the Gram Panchayat or was under its control when the area of Gram Sabha, Mansa Kalan, was included in the limits of the Municipal Committee, Mansa, respondent No. 2, by virtue of the proviso to Rule 3 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), this land reverted to the petitioner and other co-sharers of the village who became its owners. However, vide notification dated 7.1.1976 published in the Punjab Government Gazette dated 16 .1.1976 (Annexure P.1), the proviso to rule 3 of the Rules was omitted. In pursuance thereto, respondent No. 1 issued instructions dated 30.4.1976 (Annexure P. 2) to all the Presidents of the Municipal Committees and others to acquire control of such lands as were mentioned in the proviso to rule 3 of the Rules and get mutations entered and sanctioned in favour of the Municipal Committees concerned. Following these instructions, mutation Annexure P. 3 was entered and was duly sanctioned in respect of land measuring 732 Kanals 13 Marlas in favour of respondent No. 2, vide Annexure P. 3. The petitioners contend that, by virtue of proviso to rule 3 of the Rules, the said land already stood vested in them and other proprietors of village Mansa Kalan and they could not be divested of this right by subsequent omission of the proviso to the said rule, by notification Annexure P. 1. They alleged that they came to know about the mutation Annexure P. 3 much later when respondent No. 2 started forcibly taking possession of the land in question. Thus, approaching this Court through the present writ petition, they have sought a writ of certiorari for quashing Annexure P. 1 to P. 3 and a writ of prohibition restraining respondent No. 2 from auctioning the said land.

(2.) The petition has been contested by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by filing their separate written statements. It has been asserted by respondent No. 2 that, by virtue of notification Annexure P. 1, the whole of the land belonging to the Panchayat stood vested in it as the whole the Sabha area of village Mansa Kalan has been included in the Municipal Committee. The question of the petitioners being deprived of their vested right to property, according to respondent No. 2, did not arise. The land which previously vested in the Gram Panchayat now stood vested in respondent No. 2 by operation of law.

(3.) This case earlier came up for hearing on 22.1.1986. Since the pleadings of the parties did not disclose the date on which the area of the Gram Sabha was included in the Municipal Committee, respondent No. 2, for which purpose a notification must have been issued by the State Government, on the request of the learned counsel for the parties to ascertain this data, I had adjourned the case. Now when the case came up for arguments, the information regarding the exact date when the area of village Mansa Kalan was included in the Municipal Committee, respondent No. 2, was not available with either of the learned counsel for the parties. It was, however, admitted on both sides that this area was so included in the Municipal limits long before 7.1.1976 when the notification Annexure P. 1 was issued. On this premises, Mr. Ashok Bhan, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners, contended that, by virtue of proviso to rule 3 of the Rules, which was in existence on the date when the area of Gram Sabha, Mansa Kalan, was included in the Municipal Committee, the rights in the lands, in dispute, reverted to the petitioners and the other co-sharers of the village. Simply because on a later date, i.e. 7.1.1976, the said proviso to rule 3 of the Rules has been omitted by notification Annexure P. 1, they cannot be divested of their rights in the said land. To appreciate this contention of the learned counsel, it is necessary to reproduce rule 3 of the Rues before its amendment, vide notification Annexure P. 1 :-