Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 229 (PNJ)

Sukhwinder Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab

2024-01-24

LALIT BATRA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2024
Judgment Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J. It is not in dispute amongst the contesting litigants, that in terms of Panchayat resolution (Annexure P-1), drawn on 16.5.1994, thus the petitioner’s land, has been permitted to be exchagned with the land of the Gram Panchayat concerned. 2. Nonetheless, it is but also exemplified, that though Annexure P-1 became passed in the year 1994, but yet the approving authority concerned, has failed to mete an approval theretos. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the said exchange became actioned, upon at the instance of the Panchayat concerned, but only to the extent that it assumed possession, and, also utilized the petitioner’s land but it did not release the panchayat land to the present petitioner. The said made argument is supported by the hereinafter extracted relevant paragraph, occurring in Annexure P-7 drawn on 31.10.2018, by the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana. “In respect of the letter under reference, an inquiry report has been received from Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jagraon. In the report received from him vide letter No.4830/Reader dated 25.10.2018, it has been stated that the concerned place was inspected with BDPO, Jagraon and Secretary, Market Committee, Jagraon. At the site, Kuldeep Singh, Sarpanch, Darshan Singh son of Kartar Singh, Harpreet Singh son of Avtar Singh, Manharpreet Singh son of Balwant Singh, village resident and Circle Kanungo and Patwari were present with the record. Upon inspecting the site, it has been found that the land of 27 kanals 11 marla, which has been taken by Panchayat by way of transfer from Sh. Sukhwinder Singh son of Darshan Singh, is very near to the village and on the wide path. Today, its market price is about Rs.32 lacs per acre. Thus, the total price of total 27 kanal 11 marla land (about three and a half acre) taken from Sukhwinder Singh is Rs. 1 crore 12 lacs. In lieu thereof, the land of 58 kanals 19 marla (about seven and a half acre) of the Gram Panchayat, which has been given to Sukhwinder Singh, is at a distance of about five and a half kilometer from the village boundary and the surrounding area is about two and a half feet deep from the land. Today, the market price of this land is Rs.96 lacs at the rate of Rs.12 lacs per acre. Today, the market price of this land is Rs.96 lacs at the rate of Rs.12 lacs per acre. Thus, the price of the land of Sukhwinder Singh is more than the land of the panchayat.” 4. It is also mentioned in Annexure P-7, that the value of the petitioner’s land is higher than the value of the land of the Gram Panchayat concerned. 5. Though, a reading of Annexure P-7 reveals, that the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana, who is the apposite recommendatory authority to the Panchayat resolution (Annexure P-1), rather has thereby, thus recommended that an approval be granted to the exchange of the petitioner’s land but with the land of the Gram Panchayat concerned. 6. However, it is stated by the learned State counsel, that the Deputy Director concerned, has not accepted the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana, as enclosed in Annexure P-7. He submits, that the said non-acceptance is founded on the premise, that the valuation of the exchanged land has been asked to be done from the Tehsildar concerned. The above submission made before this Court, thus for no action being drawn by the Deputy Director concerned, despite the relevant recommendation, as enclosed in Annexure P-7 becoming made to him by the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana, is but a mere pretextual, as well as a conjured reason, rather for completest failure on the part of the approving authority concerned, to affirmatively act, upon, the prima facie well made recommendation to the concerned, rather by the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana. 7. The reason for making the above conclusion stems, from the factum, that there is a detailed reference in the opening of Annexure P-7, that the said valuation has been made in terms of the inquiry report becoming received from the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jagraon. It is the said inquiry report, which has been referred in the above extracted portion of Annexure P-7. 8. Apparently, the said Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jagraon, is an officer higher, in rank to the Tehsildar concerned, whereto whom now, the Deputy Director concerned, has proceeded to make an order for making a fresh valuation of the exchanged lands. It is the said inquiry report, which has been referred in the above extracted portion of Annexure P-7. 8. Apparently, the said Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jagraon, is an officer higher, in rank to the Tehsildar concerned, whereto whom now, the Deputy Director concerned, has proceeded to make an order for making a fresh valuation of the exchanged lands. Therefore too, it appears, that the Deputy Director concerned, has failed to make a sound discerning application of mind to the recommendation made in Annexure P-7, but founded upon the report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jagraon, especially when today it is not submitted before this Court by the learned State counsel, that the recitals occurring in Annexure P-7 are completely false, and/or, are not yet founded, upon the report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jagron, as relates to the valuation of the petitioner’s land, being higher than the value of the land of the Gram Panchayat concerned, wherebys no detriment ensues to the Gram Panchayat concerned. 9. Even today, no challenge has been made before this Court by the learned State counsel, from instructions from the quarter concerned, thus appertaining, to the above mentionings in Annexure P-7, but with candid echoings, that the said transfer has been acted, upon in the year 1994, but singularly at the instance of the Gram Panchayat concerned, inasmuch as, the market yard, and, other facilities becoming raised on the lands of the present petitioner. Therefore too, the exchange, has been acted upon only piecemeal or is favourably acted, upon, only vis-a-vis the panchayat concerned, and, remains unacted upon vis-a-vis the present petitioner, but when naturally the said piecemeal acting, upon the relevant exchange, is but detrimental to the present petitioner. Resultantly thereby too legitimate expectation, is endowed upon the present petitioner, to ensure that the delay in the making of the completest compliance, and, execution of the panchayat resolution, to which an affirmative recommendation, has been made through Annexure P-7, thus requires being undone, through a promptest action, on Annexure P-7 being drawn by the Deputy Director concerned. 10. Resultantly thereby too legitimate expectation, is endowed upon the present petitioner, to ensure that the delay in the making of the completest compliance, and, execution of the panchayat resolution, to which an affirmative recommendation, has been made through Annexure P-7, thus requires being undone, through a promptest action, on Annexure P-7 being drawn by the Deputy Director concerned. 10. The further conclusion from this Court, thus drawing a legitimate expectation, vis-a-vis, the present petitioner qua Annexure P-7, is but well grooved in the factum, that the respondent concerned, in the face of the Panchayat concerned, assuming possession over the petitioner’s land of a higher valuation, than the Gram Panchayat’s land, but on the principle of promissory estoppel, becomes estopped to prima facie decline approval to the recommendation as is enclosed in Annexure P-7. 11. Since today, from the quarter concerned, the learned State counsel, has omitted to place before this Court, thus material, which engulfs the echoings made in Annexure P-7, rather in a shroud of doubt, thereupon prima facie this Court finds, that there is no valid reason, which may prevail, with the Deputy Director concerned, to yet insist, that a fresh valuation of the relevant lands be made by the Tehsildar concerned. The above asking for, by the Deputy Director concerned, but without any tangible material to whittle down the effect of Annexure P-7, but prima facie appear to be a measure to harass, and, humiliate the present petitioner, and, further to deprive him of the benefit of the land of the Gram Panchayat concerned, which was to be also promptly assigned to him, especially when the Panchayat concerned, has in the year 1994 assumed possession of the petitioner’s land, besides has made it utilizable for the relevant public purpose. 12. In consequence, a mandamus is made, upon the Director concerned, to make compliance with Annexure P-7, unless he has strong and, tangible material or evidence with him, thus to bely all the echoings made in Annexure P-7. 13. The above approval to Annexure P-7, be made both by the Deputy Director concerned, and, by the Director concerned, positively within three weeks from today, and, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the present petitioner. 14. 13. The above approval to Annexure P-7, be made both by the Deputy Director concerned, and, by the Director concerned, positively within three weeks from today, and, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the present petitioner. 14. It is clarified, that also in accordance with law, encumbrance free delivery of possession becomes handed over of the relevant panchayat land, to the present petitioner, but within two months from today. 15. The petition stands disposed of. The pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.