Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Gurbachan Singh on 9 April, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048005
RSA-962-1994 & 2024:PHHC:048005
RSA-963-1994 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
106
1. RSA-962-1994
Date of decision: 09.04.2024
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. ..Appellants
Versus
GURBACHAN SINGH ..Respondent
2. RSA-963-1994
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. ..Appellants
Versus
GURBACHAN SINGH ..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Kanav Singla, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Praagbir Singh, Advocate
and Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate
for respondent.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)
1. Brief facts of the case:-
1.1 With the consent of the learned counsel representing the parties,
two connected regular second appeals arising from a common judgment
passed by the trial Court, which has been reversed by the First Appellate
Court while deciding the plaintiff's suit, shall stand disposed of.
1.2 The following interesting issue arises for consideration:-
"Whether the registered sale deed executed in favour of
the State of Punjab can be ignored on the ground that it
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048005
RSA-962-1994 & 2024:PHHC:048005
RSA-963-1994 -2-
has not been executed through the Hon'ble Governor of
the State or on behalf of the Governor of the State?"
1.3 The undisputed facts of the matter at hand are that Gram
Panchayat of village Malout purchased the land measuring 4 kanal and 16
marlas vide sale deed dated 19.06.1972, in order to provide water supply to
the residents for construction of water works. The sale deed was executed in
favour of the State of Punjab through Gram Panchayat. In this case, the
vendors were private persons including Sh. Pritam Singh and the entire
amount of sale consideration was paid by the Gram Panchayat. The water
works was constructed by the concerned Department of the State
Government. The plaintiff (respondent in RSA-963-1994) filed a suit for
grant of decree of permanent injunction claiming that he has purchased the
land measuring 11 kanal and 7 marlas comprised in Rectangle No.116, Killa
No.16 (5-4), Rectangle No.458, Khasra No.4 (6-13). Thereafter, the plaintiff
claims that he has orally exchanged 2 kanal and 9 marlas out of land
comprised in Rectangle No.116, Killa No.16 (5-4) with Sh. Pritam Singh and
obtained possession of the land comprised in Rectangle No.116, Killa
No.15/2 (2-9). He claims to have constructed a bungalow, whereas, the
defendant intends to demolish the same.
1.4 The State of Punjab contested the suit. It was claimed that the
plaintiff has got no right, title or interest in the property as Sh. Pritam Singh,
the vendor of the plaintiff had already sold the suit land in favour of the
Government/Gram Panchayat. The trial Court dismissed the suit, however,
decreed the counter claim filed by the State of Punjab directing the plaintiff
to remove the obstruction.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048005
RSA-962-1994 & 2024:PHHC:048005
RSA-963-1994 -3-
2. Reasons recorded by the First Appellate Court:-
2.1 The First Appellate Court while relying upon Article 298 and
299 of the Constitution of India held that Gram Panchayat had no authority
to purchase the land on behalf of the State Government. While interpreting
Article 298 and 299, the First Appellate Court has held that any contract,
which is entered into by the State Government has to be in the name of the
Hon'ble Governor of the State and in absence thereof, such contract shall be
considered void ab initio. Resultantly, the sale deed in favour of the State has
been nullified by the First Appellate Court.
3. Arguments put forth by the learned counsel representing the
parties:-
3.1 This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the
parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paperbook along
with the scanned lower Court record.
3.2 On the one hand, the learned counsel representing the appellant
submits that the First Appellate Court has erred in accepting the appeal as the
contract made for the public purpose cannot be nullified on the basis of
Article 299 of the Constitution of India. He also submits that Article 298
discusses about business or trade carried on by the Government and it is not
applicable to the facts of the present case.
3.3 Per contra, the learned Senior counsel representing the
respondent submits that the sale deed executed in favour of the State is not
enforceable, particularly when it has not been executed in accordance with
Article 299 of the Constitution of India.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048005
RSA-962-1994 & 2024:PHHC:048005
RSA-963-1994 -4-
4. Discussion by this Court:-
4.1 This Court has considered the submissions of the learned
counsel representing the parties.
4.2 The sale deed was executed on 19.06.1972 is Ex.D-1. This sale
deed has been read over in the open Court.
4.3 In the aforesaid sale deed, the vendee has been described as
State of Punjab through Department of Public Health through Gram
Panchayat. The entire sale consideration has been paid by the Gram
Panchayat. Even if it is assumed that the State could not enter into a contract
unless it is entered in the name of the Hon'ble Governor or on behalf of the
Governor, still the sale deed in favour of Gram Panchayat shall have to be
considered particularly when the intention was to purchase the property for a
public purpose. The Gram Panchayat as per part IX of the Constitution of
India is also a body corporate. The Gram Panchayat has been defined under
Article 243 (d) of the Constitution of India. In other words, the Gram
Panchayat is a constitutional body created under the Constitution for
empowering self governance at the village levels. Irrespective of the fact
whether the property belongs to the State Government or Gram Panchayat,
the plaintiff, who is a subsequent purchaser as well as recipient of a part of
the land pursuant to exchange will not get any right, particularly when his
vendor had already sold the property in favour of the State or the Gram
Panchayat in the year 1972 for a public purpose. The Constitution of India
under Article 243(G) empowers the Gram Panchayat to carry out the public
work and welfare functions. Schedule 11 of the Constitution of India has
enlisted a number of subjects on which the Gram Panchayat has been given
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048005
RSA-962-1994 & 2024:PHHC:048005
RSA-963-1994 -5-
the power of implementation and execution. The said schedule underscores
the responsibilities of Gram Panchayat and arrangement of clean drinking
water is one such duty enlisted in it.
4.4. The First Appellate Court shall have ordered the rectification of
the instrument i.e. sale deed as provided under Section 26 of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963, rather than setting the sale deed aside. Hence, the
impugned judgment is erroneous and perverse.
5. Decision:-
5.1 Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, both the appeals are
disposed of.
5.2 All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
April 09th, 2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Ay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
