Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwant Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 14 December, 2023
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161911
CWP-2147-2017 -1- 2023:PHHC:161911
104 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-2147-2017
Date of decision : 14.12.2023
Balwant Singh .....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
***
Present :- Ms. Meena Bansal, Legal Aid Counsel,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Akshita Chauhan, DAG, Punjab with
Ms. Hardeep Kaur, Sarpanch in person.
Ms. Amarjit Kaur, Advocate for
respondent No.3.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.
Prayer in the present petition is for quashing the impugned
order dated 09.09.2016 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.1 vide
which the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the
meeting of Gram Panchayat, Anro was held on 01.10.2001 vide which the
Resolution was passed and it was decided that a free passage of 3 karams
should be given from Khanauri Arno Road to Dera Sher Singha from
Khasra No.71 and 15, 16, 252/5, 72 and 6, 15, 16, 73/20; 84 and 1, 10,
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 25 and 87 and 5 number and 4 number of shamlat
land. It is submitted that the resolution was passed to resolve the problem
faced by the people and school going children. She submits that on
28.05.2007, Kehar Singh son of Karam Singh filed a civil suit for
permanent injunction restraining the defendant from blocking or
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161911
CWP-2147-2017 -2- 2023:PHHC:161911
encroaching the passage on the ground that the suit land was the
ownership of the Gram Panchayat and is a gairmumkin passage. The suit
was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 01.05.2010. She submits
that against the judgment and decree dated 01.05.2010, the defendants
filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala which
was dismissed and thus, the findings of the trial Court were affirmed vide
judgment and decree dated 10.03.2012. She has submitted that ignoring
the judgments, Jaspal Singh, Member Panchayat along with others
approached the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab
challenging the resolution dated 01.10.2001 vide which the passage of 3
karams was given from Khanauri-Anro Road to Dera Sher Singha. It is
submitted that vide order dated 23.10.2015, respondent No.2-Director
declared the resolution dated 01.10.2001 passed by the Gram Panchayat
as illegal and thereby cancelled the same. She submits that aggrieved by
the same, petitioner filed the appeal before respondent No.1 under
Section 201 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. He has submitted
that respondent No.1 without appreciating the evidence on record, upheld
the orders passed by the Director vide his order dated 09.09.2016.
It is submitted that both the impugned orders dated
23.10.2015 and 09.09.2016 are unsustainable in the eyes of law as
respondent No.1 has not appreciated the resolution dated 01.10.2001 was
passed unanimously to resolve the difficulty faced by the residents. She
submits that respondent No.1 has failed to appreciate the judgment and
decree passed by the Civil Court dated 01.05.2010 and 10.03.2012. She
submits that the report of the DDPO relied upon by the authorities below
is not based on the correct facts and thus, the impugned orders are not
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161911
CWP-2147-2017 -3- 2023:PHHC:161911
based on the correct facts. She submits that 3 karams passage was in
operation since 2001 and the same has been reduced to 2 karams after a
period of 16 years by cancelling the resolution dated 01.10.2001 which is
totally unsustainable in the eyes of law. She submits that the impugned
orders being against the spirit of law, deserves to be set aside.
This Court has summoned the Sarpanch of the Village and
BDPO as well. BDPO Ms. Paramjit Kaur appeared before this Court on
14.11.2023. Learned State counsel had submitted that the resolution was
passed in violation of the statutory provisions. The land falls under the
shamlat land and thus, keeping in view the resolution passed on dated
01.10.2001 found to be illegal, the impugned orders suffer from no
illegality. This Court has interacted with BDPO Ms. Paramjit Kaur who
had submitted that the record was perused and the site was also inspected.
It was submitted that the passage was of 2 karams wide only but by virtue
of the resolution, it was increased to 3 karams by encroaching upon the
shamlat land and hence, the impugned orders were passed in accordance
with law. Sarpanch, Ms. Hardeep Kaur, is also present in the Court and
has submitted that as per the grievances raised by the petitioner, the
resolution was passed for increasing the width of the passage to 3 karams
by passing the resolution. She has submitted that by increasing the
passage to 3 karams, shamlat land would be used.
After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record,
it is apparent that 2 karam wide passage leads to Dera Sher Singha from
Khanauri Arno link road and this rasta of 2 karams continued and existing
till date. The Gram Panchayat had passed the resolution on 01.10.2001 to
increase the width from 2 karams to 3 karams on the ground that the
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161911
CWP-2147-2017 -4- 2023:PHHC:161911
families residing in the dera were facing the problem. However, this
resolution was challenged before the Director under Section 199 of
Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and the same was cancelled by the
Director vide order dated 23.10.2015. Aggrieved by the same, the order
was challenged before respondent No.1. It was found that the resolution
had been passed by the Panchayat without taking into consideration that
shamlat land of the village would be used for implementing this
resolution. The Director had directed the DDPO, Patiala to inspect the site
and assess the situation whether there was any requirement for widening
of the rasta to 3 karams as contended by the petitioners. The DDPO
submitted its report and it was found that the existing rasta of 2 karams
was sufficient for the residents of dera. Thus, it was established that the
demand raised by the petitioner for increasing the width of the rasta from
2 karams to 3 karams was not legally sustainable. Thus, both the Courts
below rejected the claim of the petitioner and thus, passed the impugned
orders. In the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court do
not find any infirmity in the view taken especially when the increase of
rasta was utilized from the shamlat land of the village. Thus, finding no
merit in the petition, the same is hereby dismissed.
( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
14.12.2023 JUDGE
m. sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161911
4 of 4
