SUKHMANDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order, dated 25th November, 1994 (copy of which is Annexure P-11), by which the Government of Punjab granted approval for exchange of land measuring 1 Kanal 13 Maria in Khasra No. 842 with the land measuring 2 kanals 13 marlas belonging to Mohinder Singh son of Shri Lal Singh. It may be pointed out here that the said approval was granted by the Government pursuant to the resolution dated 23rd August, 1993, passed by the Gram Panchayat and the copy of this resolution has been annexed as Annexure P-12 with this petition.

(2.) MR . Deol, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, drew our attention to Rule 5 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 and submitted that in terms of the said rule, the land belonging to the Panchayat could be exchanged only if the same was necessary for the benefit of the inhabitants of the village. He submitted that in terms of the said rule, the land belonging to the Panchayat could be exchanged only if the same was necessary for the benefit of the inhabitants of the village. He submitted that in the resolution, there is no mention to the effect that this land has been exchanged for the benefit of the inhabitants. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Fateh and Ors. Gram Panchayat village Wazirabad, (1994-2)107 P. L. R. 704. The learned counsel further submitted that the aforesaid judgment was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in the case, M/s. Vikalap Agro Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana etc. , 1996 P. L. J. 177. The learned counsel also submitted that while granting the approval for the exchange, the value of the two lands was not taken into consideration as required under Rule 5.

(3.) WE have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. From the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it is clear that the land belonging to Khasra No. 842 was not of any use for the Panchayat and it had become redundant. The exchange of this land with bigger piece of land having higher valuation which was likely to increase the income of Panchayat as stated in Resolution dated 23rd August, 1993 (Annexure P-12) was not only in the interest of the village Panchayat but was also for the benefit of the inhabitants as the income from the land has to be utilised for the benefit of the inhabitants. Since we have held that the exchange of land was for the benefit of the inhabitants, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel of the petitioners are of no assistance to them.