STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. versus GRAM PANCHAYAT AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 283 · Decided: 06-03-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

---
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
GRAM PANCHAYAT AND ORS. 
MARCH 6; 2002 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
B 
Punjab Village Common land (Regulation) Act, 1961: 
Ss. 2 (g)(ii-a) 4, 7 and 11-Shamlat delr-Vesting of in Gram Panchayat-
App/ication u/s 7 by Gram Panchayat for possession as the said land has C 
vested in it and was mutated in its nam.,_Application contested by appellants 
contending that mutation in the name of Panchayat was effected without notice 
to them-That the land belonged to appellant-State Government and was 
allotted to appellant nos.2 and 3-Appellants 2 and 3 established a potato/arm 
therein by spending crores of rupees and constructed pucca buildings thereon- D 
The authorities under the Act and the High Court held in favour of the Gram 
Panchayat-Contention that after amendment ofs. 3 by Act 8of1995 the land 
stood excluded from the land vested in Panchayat, rejected-Held, question of 
dispute as to title was not referred to competent authority u/s I I-But on 
application of Panchayat uls 7 both, the Collector as also the Commissioner, 
found that appellant nos. 2 and 3 had not produced anything to show that the E 
land had vested in them or had been transferred by sale or otherwise in their 
favour-Jn view of these findings of fact, the amended provision would have 
no application-Besides, no right can be claimed by appellants on the basis 
of vesting of land under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 as, 
under the State Act, Sham/at deh would vest in the Panchayat-lt was submitted F 
on behalf of the Gram Panchayat that it would lease out to appellants the land 
on which their buildings are existing together with land necessary for ingress 
ond egress to reach the said land-Submission recorded-However nothing 
said in the judgment shall preclude the State Gavernment to establish its title 
to protect the farm and the buildings-Administration. of Evacuee Property 
Act, 1950. 
G 
Gram Panchayat of Village Jamalpur v. Ma/winder Singh and Ors., (1985] 
Suppl 2 SCR 28, relied on. 
283 
H 
284 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10364 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.2.96 of the Punjab and Haryana 
High Court in C.W.P. No. 5436 of 1995. 
B 
Shiv Pujan Singh and R.S. Suri for the Appellants. 
Hardev Singh and Ms. Madhu Moolchandani for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
C 
This appeal, by special leave, is from the judgment of the Division 
Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissing 
appellant's CWP No. 5436 of 1995 on February 27, 1996, following the 
judgment of this Court in Gram Panchayat of Village Jamalpur v. Ma/winder 
Singh and Ors., [1985] Suppl 2 SCR 28. 
D 
To appreciate the controversy involved in this case it would be necessary 
to notice the facts giving rise to this appeal. The first respondent filed 
application before the Development and Panchayat Officer-cum-Collector, 
Ludhiana (for short. 'the Collector') under Section 7 of the Punjab Village 
Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') for possession 
of the land in dispute on the ground that the land has vested in it and the 
E same was mutated in the name of Panchayat by order of the Tehsildar dated 
September 4, 1986. Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 contested the claim of the first 
respondent pleading; that the land belonged to the Government of Punjab and 
it was allotted in their favour under a package deal in lieu of which the 
amount was also deposited in the Treasury; that the pos!.~ssion of the land 
F was given 'to them as per the order of the Tehsildar in the year 1970 and on 
that basis they have been in possession of the same; that the mutation in the 
name of Panchayat was done without notice to them, therefore, it is illegal; 
that by mutation the Panchayat did not become the owner of the land in 
which there was potato farm which was Government Agency; that the 
Government of Punjab established the potato farm by spending crores of 
G rupees; that pucca buildings were constructed on the site and 27 crores and 
9 electric motors were also installed there; and that there are 12 tractors of 
the farm on the site. It was further averred that the Government was spending 
about IO to 11 lakhs per year on the potato farm. 
H 
The Collector, after discussing the evidence placed on record by the 
_...- -· ........ 
STATEv. GRAMPANCHAYAT 
285 
parties

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.