GRAM PANCHAYAT, NANAK NAGRI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present writ petition, the petitioner through its Sarpanch has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dtd. 9/8/2018 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala, respondent No.5, by which partition/division of area of lands and allotment thereof was made between the Gram Panchayat, Nanak Nagri (the petitioner) and the Gram Panchayat Village Chaheru, Tehsil Phagwara, District Kapurthala (respondent No.7).

(2.) In the year 1988, the Gram Panchayat Village Chaheru, respondent No.7 was bifurcated and from it, the petitioner Gram Panchayat Nanak Nagri was carved out. The petitioner Gram Panchayat had made a representation in 2010 when the Deputy Director (Development) had taken up the file, but no action took place. As per Sec. 3 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'Act of 1994), assets and liabilities were also required to be divided and the newly carved out petitioner Gram Panchayat was required to be handed over the same. The petitioner Gram Panchayat filed CWP No.15526 of 2016 in this Court and this Court vide order dtd. 3/8/2016 (Annexure P-1) had directed respondent No.5-The Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala to decide the issue regarding partition of lands. The Divisional Deputy Director Rural Development & Panchayat, Jalandhar and The Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala, respondent No.5 then passed orders dtd. 14/2/2017/21/2/2017 partitioning the property. The partition was also sanctioned in the name of petitioner Gram Panchayat. However, the petitioner raised a grievance that certain portion of the lands allotted to the petitioner Gram Panchayat has been in illegal occupation of village people and then until and unless the same is got vacated, the partition or distribution cannot be made. By the impugned order, 61% of the area of the Panchayat has been allotted to respondent No.7-Gram Panchayat Chaheru and 39% to the petitioner Gram Panchayat-Nanak Nagri. The petitioner Gram Panchayat again filed a petition challening the order dtd. 14/2/2017 passed by the Divisional Deputy Director Rural Development & Panchayat, Jalandhar before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2, on 6/4/2017, asked the Divisional Deputy Director Rural Development & Panchayat, Jalandhar to hear both the Panchayats and to make a fresh order.

(3.) In support of the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjeev K. Virk, vehemently argued that the Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala did not hear the parties and therefore, the impugned order is in contravention of the order dtd. 7/11/2017 made by this Court. Learned counsel also argued that the petitioner Gram Panchayat has given only 39% out of the total Panchayat land. According to him, the petitioner Gram Panchayat is entitled to 50% share of the land as per the population. He then submitted that there are some unauthorised occupants on the land; some of which has been included in the share of the petitioner Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat should have been given 50% of the land and not 39% as has been done in the impugned order. Learned counsel then argued that the distribution of the land in issue of the population is incorrect and illegal. He further argued that the distribution ought to have been made equally, i.e. 50% to both the Gram Panchayat. Some of the lands allotted to the petitioner Gram Panchayat being in possession of unauthorised occupants, no partition could have been made unless the unauthorised possession was got vacated through legal proceedings. Learned counsel therefore, urged this Court to quash the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala.