Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

[Provided that where the land is required, in connection with the Integrated Rural Development Programme sponsored by the Government the Panchayat may, with the approval of the Collector, transfer any land in shamilat Deh by exchange with the land of an equivalent value.]"

It is accordingly pleaded that the sale and exchange being almost identical in nature are to be regulated by the provisions of Rule 12 and, thus, Panchayat would have passed a resolution proposing exchange with only 3/4th majority and not otherwise.

(4) As mentioned by the Office, the land which is being given is in 1 or 2 plots but the land which the Panchayats are getting are in 6-7 plots, which is clear from the site plan also. This also affects the rate/value of the land.

Secretary, Rural Development accordingly recommended that the exchange should be rejected. Still, the power of Colonizer was so overwhelming that Rural Development and Panchayat Minister on 30.7.2007 directed that the land in Raipur Khurd be re- assessed from the Committee. The Minister appointed Deputy Commissioner as the Chairman of the Committee and sought the report within a period of 1/1-2 months. It is the case of the petitioners that this exchange would only benefit the Colonizer, who would make a profit of Rs.2.00 crores per acre and resultant loss to the Gram panchayat. According to the petitioners, the whole village up in arms and as many as 308 persons had signed the requisition for convening an emergent extraordinary general meeting of Gram Sabha in terms of the provisions of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short "1994 Act") to say that the proposed exchange is against the interest of Gram Panchayat Sukhgarh. The copy of the requisition signed by 308 persons is annexed as Annexure P-7. Two of the Members Panchayat are petitioners No.1 and 17, who have filed the present petition. In fact, their grievance is that while passing the resolution, permitting exchange, no notice in regard to the meeting of the Gram Panchayat was given to the members of the Panchayat. This is in violation of Section 23 of the 1994 Act. A reference is also made to earlier writ petition filed on behalf of the residents of the village, wherein notice of motion was issued and status-quo in regard to property directed to be maintained. Reference is also made to a letter dated 26.9.2006 where the pricing/value of the land in village Raipur Khurd was assessed at Rs.60.00 lacs per acre and in village Sukhgarh to be Rs.58,69,760/- per acre. This, as per the petitioners, was without working out any details. No reference was made to the sale deeds etc. Even the fact that village Sukhgarh now falls in residential zone, whereas the land in village Raipur Khurd falls in Institutional Zone, as per the Master Plan, has also not been taken into consideration. Reference is also made to the instructions issued by Government of Panchayat and Department of Revenue containing guidelines while assessing the value of the land, which are as under:-

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
The first contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners is that the land offered in exchange is not equal in value to the one offered by respondent No.12. Thus, this exchange, according to the counsel, would violate Rule 5 of the Rules. As per this rule, the exchange has to be for the benefit of inhabitants with the land which is of equal value. I have not been able to appreciate the change of heart by Secretary, Government Punjab, Department of Rural Development in short span of time. He, vide his order dated 30.5.2007, had rejected the exchange on the ground that there was a huge difference of the value of the land. He noted the difference on the ground that land in village Sukhgarh was reserved for residential and commercial zone in the Master Plan, whereas the land offered by respondent No.12 was reserved for institutions. He also noticed that the land offered by the Colonizer (respondent No.12) was in 6-7 plots. This apart, the reliance by the petitioners on the sale deeds also cannot be easily ignored. In fact, any evaluation done in the absence of sale deed of the land concerned or contiguous thereto would or cannot be a safe method. This fact should have invited consideration of the committee. The petitioners have placed reliance on some sale deeds to show that the price of the land in village Sukhgarh would not be less than Rs.1.60 crores per acre. The reasons for which Secretary, Rural Development had rejected the exchange, as contained in Annexure P-6, have been reproduced above. He found that there was a huge difference in a rate of land which the Panchayat is getting and the land which is to be given by the Panchayat. The Secretary then referred to the sale deeds to find that rate of one kanal land in village Sukhgarh would work out to be Rs.19-20 lacs, whereas average rate of the land offered in exchange by respondent No.12 would be Rs.7-8 lacs per Kanal. The Secretary also took note of the fact that the land in villages Sukhgarh and Sambhalki is reserved for residential and commercial purposes, whereas the land in village Raipur Khurd has been reserved for institutional purposes. He also observed that the value of the land in village Sukhgarh was Rs.1.60 crores per acre, whereas in village Raipur Khurd rate was Rs.60-70 lacs per acre. While assessing the income of Colonizer from one acre of land, the Secretary in his note observed as under:-

The Secretary, Rural Development was expected to stand up and not to succumb in the manner as is done. He could not have ignored valid grounds taken into considerations by him earlier. Influence of the Rural Development and Panchayat Minister seems to have weighed heavy on him. Still, he seems to have conveyed his feeling and reluctance on his part by saying that exchange is liable to be allowed as per the recommendation of the Gram Panchayat and the local officers. His discomfort while endorsing this note is clearly seen. He should have been bold enough to stick to his view which was appropriate and as he has rightly assessed that this exchange would lead to profit of nearly Rs.2.00 crores per acre to the Colonizer, which shall be a resultant loss to the Gram Panchayat. The evaluation done by the Committee which has subsequently been approved and exchange ordered, thus, cannot be accepted as it suffers from apparent influence and is not actuated with and apparently is not a bonafide exercise of power. The Committee appears to have abdicated its functions. The report of the Committee would also sans reasons and in support nothing is noted or mentioned. How value of this land was fixed would defy logic. No factor was taken into consideration while assessing the value of the land in villages Raipur Khurd, Sambhalki and Sukhgarh. This report of the Committee is without any reasons and, thus, cannot be sustained on this ground as well. It would be of benefit to notice the manner in which the Committee assessed the price/value of the land in different villages. The observation of the Committee reads as under:-