Gram Panchayat Dera vs State of Haryana and Others

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The Petitioner passed resolutions in December, 1995 and in January, 1996, to give land on lease to 40 persons. RespondentsNo. 4 to 9 filed a petition before the Director, Panchayats, u/s 47 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). They prayed that the resolutions dated December 21, 1995, December 26, 1995 and January 4, 1996 passed by the Gram Panchayat for giving the land on lease be annulled. Vide order dated July 16, 1997, the Director Panchayats accepted this prayer. The Petitioner-Panchayat Filed an appeal u/s 47(3) of the Act. The Financial Commissioner dismissed it vide his order dated July 5, 1999. The resolutions passed by the Panchayat for giving the land on lease were revoked. Copies of the two orders passed by the Director and the Financial Commissioner have been produced on the record as Annexures P5 and P6 respectively.

Aggrieved by the two orders, the Petitioner-Panchayat has approached this Court through the present writ petition. It prays that these orders be quashed.

The case was posted before the Bench on October 18,2000. It was stated by coun sel for the Petitioner that the land had been given on lease for a period of five years, which would expire on January 3, 2001. Thereafter the lessees shall have no right in the land and shall be liable to vacate the plots. Consequently, the case was adjourned. It has been put up for hearing today.

Mr. V.B. Aggarwal, counsel for the Petitioner contends that he has asked the Sar-panch of the Panchayat to instruct him as to whether or not the lease had been extended. He has not received any instructions.

On the other hand, Mr. Mamli, appearing for Respondents No. 4 to 9 states that the land was leased out at a very nominal rate, ranging from Rs. 615 to Rs. 635 per plot. The authorities have rightly found that the resolutions were not in the interest of the Panchayat. Thus, the impugned orders call for no interference.

A perusal of the order dated July 16, 1997, passed by the Director shows that it has been found as a fact that "the impugned resolutions have not been passed in the interest of the Gram Panchayat". This finding has been affirmed by the Financial Commissioner. Even on a perusal of the resolutions, it is apparent that the plots were given on rent at the rate of Rs. 600/- to Rs. 635. The land is admittedly situated on the main road. Nothing has been pointed out to show that the findings recorded by the two authorities are not factually correct. In any event, the lease had admittedly been given for a period of five years. The period of lease has already expired.

Faced with this situation, counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Director had no jurisdiction to cancel the lease.

The petition u/s 47 had been filed to challenge the resolutions passed by the Panchayat. u/s 47 of the Act, the Director can even suo motu intervene and pass such orders as he may deem fit. In the present case, it is admitted position that Respondents No. 4 to 9 had challenged the resolutions passed by the Gram Panchayat. The Director had the jurisdiction to set aside the resolutions. The Gram Panchayat had filed an appeal before the Government. It had been rejected by the Financial Commissioner. The orders are within the provisions of Section 47 of the Act. Irrespective of that, even the period of lease has expired. There is no ground to interfere.

No other point has been raised.

In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition. It is consequently dismissed. No order as to costs.

Sd/- N.K. Sud, J.