Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gram Panchayat Taraf Behbal Bahadar vs State Of Punjab And Others on 27 May, 2013

Author: Surya Kant

Bench: Surya Kant

LPA No. 671 of 2012                                          -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


                                     LPA No. 671 of 2012 (O&M)

                                     Date of decision: 27.5.2013


Gram Panchayat Taraf Behbal Bahadar

                                                       ..... Appellant


                  Versus

State of Punjab and others

                                                       ..... Respondents



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
       HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH

PRESENT: Mr. M.S. Bedi, Advocate for the appellant.

            Ms. Munisha Gandhi, Addl. A.G. Punjab.

SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Gram Panchayat of Village Taraf Behbal Bahadar, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala, whereby the writ petition filed by respondents No. 6 and 7 has been allowed holding that the subject land was no longer a shamilat deh in view of the amendment in Section 2 (g) (ii-a) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 carried out by way of Punjab Act No. 8 of 1995. The afore-stated provision reads as follows:-

"Section 2(g)"Shamilat deh" includes- (1)xxxx LPA No. 671 of 2012 -2- (2)xxxx (3)xxxx (4)xxxx (5)xxxx but does not include land which--
(i)xxxx
(ii)xxxx (ii-a)"was shamilat deh, but has been allotted on quasi-permanent basis to a displaced person, or has been otherwise transferred to any person by sale or by any other manner whatsoever after the commencement of this Act, but on or before the 9th Day of July, 1985."

Since the sale certificate in respect of land in question was issued in favour of the contesting respondents on 9.7.1985, learned Single Judge has held and rightly so that the afore stated sale is protected under Section 2(g) (ii-a), reproduced above. No fault, thus, can be found in the order under appeal.

The appellant-Gram Panchayat, if has any claim against the State Government, may pursue its remedy in accordance with law.




                                                   ( SURYA KANT )
                                                       JUDGE



May 27, 2013                                       ( R.P. NAGRATH )
rishu                                                   JUDGE