Punjab- Haryana High Court
CWP No. 19251 of 2011 (O&M) (January, 25, 2012)
M.M. KUMAR, J.
1. The short issue raised in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is 'whether the State Government has committed any illegality in declining the request made by the Gram Panchayat, Dulyani by passing resolution No.1 dated 08.04.2011 (P-8). According to the resolution, the Gram Panchayat has submitted the proposal to allot the Shamlat land measuring 20 acres on lease hold basis belonging to Gram Panchayat comprised in Khasra Nos. 8, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14/2, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, in Khasra Nos. 9, 6, 15, 16, 17/1, 18/1, 22/1, 23/1, 24, 25, 14/2 and out of Khasra Nos. 11, 2/2, 3, 4. The lease is proposed in favour of Global Care Inventors & Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (for brevity 'the Company') for the purpose of installing the Bio-gas plant. When the recommendation made by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer reached the Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal, he forwarded the same to the Director Panchayats, Haryana with the observation that the order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab 2011 (1) RCR (Civil), be kept in view and the guidelines on the basis of the judgment be sent so that further decision be taken. The Director Panchayats, Haryana wrote back to the Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal, (P-8) that in view of the judgment in Jagpal Singh's case (supra), no long period lease could be given to a private company. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner sent back intimation to Block Development and Panchayat Officer (P-9) that no such lease could be given for long term to any private company, which was further communicated to the Gram Panchayat, Dulyani(P-10).
2. In response to the notice of motion having been issued, separate written statements by Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal-respondent No.3, Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Pudri-respondent No.4 and respondent Nos. 6 to 9 have been filed. The principal stand in all the written statements is that the company was interested in securing the lease of 20 acres of Shamlat Land for a period of 20 years and agreed to pay a sum of ` 40,000/- per acre per year and to increase 10% after every two years. The Gram Panchayat and Block Development and Panchayat Officer has supported the case for lease by substantiating that it will generate the employment for the youth as the company had agreed to employ the youth of the village to the extent of 40% in their Bio-gas plant. However, the common factor for declining the request by the Director Panchayats as well as by the State is that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh's case (supra) does not permit leasing out the Gram Panchyat land to a private company.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at a considerable length, we are of the considered view that the stand taken by the respondent is meritorious because the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh's case (supra) prohibits leasing of land to private person and the commercial enterprises on payment of some money. The view of Hon'ble the Surpeme Court is discernible from para 14 wherein it has been observed that the Shamlat land belonging to Gram Panchayat could be leased to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes or the land could be actually used for a public purpose of the village like running a school for the villagers or a dispensary for them. In para 15 their Lordships' have concluded as under:
"15. In many states Government orders have been issued by the State Government permitting allotment of Gram Sabha land to private persons and commercial enterprises on payment of some money. In our opinion all such Government orders are illegal and should be ignored."
4. It is thus, patent that the Gram Panchayat would not be competent to lease the land to private entrepreneur for commercial enterprises on payment of some money as any such resolution of the Gram Panchayat would run contrary to the view expressed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh's case (supra). The writ petition is wholly without merit and does not warrant admission.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.
(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE January 25, 2012 Atul
No comments:
Post a Comment