Sign in

No coercive action against private persons occupying Majri shamlat land: High court

Order comes following a plea against a June 1 decision by financial commissioner, revenue, Punjab, to restore possession of around 3,603 acre shamlat land to Majri panchayat

Published on: Jun 21, 2022, 01:50:42 IST
By , Chandigarh
Share
Share via
  • facebook
  • twitter
  • linkedin
  • whatsapp
Copy link
  • copy link

The Punjab and Haryana high court (HC) has restrained Punjab government from taking any coercive action pursuant to a June 1 decision in which restoration of around 3,603 acre of shamlat land from private persons to Majri panchayat in New Chandigarh area was ordered by financial commissioner, revenue, Punjab.

On June 1, financial commissioner, revenue, Punjab, Anurag Aggarwal had ordered the shamlat land, which had been “illegally” transferred to individuals in 1991, be restored to the village panchayat. (Getty Images/iStockphoto)
On June 1, financial commissioner, revenue, Punjab, Anurag Aggarwal had ordered the shamlat land, which had been “illegally” transferred to individuals in 1991, be restored to the village panchayat. (Getty Images/iStockphoto)

“...we are of the considered opinion that since the impugned order (June 1 order) has been passed without issuing notice to even a single landowner, whereas rights would have varied over a period of 30 years and rights of subsequent purchasers would be there, it would be appropriate that till the next date of hearing, the state will stay its hands and will not take any coercive action as it would only fuel a large number of petitions on the same cause of action,” the bench of justice GS Sandhawalia and justice Vikas Suri said while fixing the next date of hearing for July 18 and seeking response from the government about the pleas.

On June 1, financial commissioner, revenue, Punjab, Anurag Aggarwal had ordered the shamlat land, which had been “illegally” transferred to individuals in 1991, be restored to the village panchayat. A vigilance bureau probe was also recommended against the officials who were involved in the alleged land grab.

The land falls in New Chandigarh area in Majri panchayat and allegations are that it has been grabbed by influential politicians, bureaucrats, among others.

As per the government stand, land revenue record (jamabandi) of Majri village, showed that total shamlat land in the village was 3,603 acres in 1983-84. It included 2,172-acre area under hills and 499 acres under choes. However, the then consolidation officer issued an order on April 22, 1991, by which land was transferred to private individuals and mutations were sanctioned in favour of the same.

“The scam has caused huge financial loss to panchayat and public... Hundreds of acres of land have been grabbed in connivance with consolidation authorities, revenue officials and panchayat members,” the June 1 order read.

The government was prompted to pass the order after some persons complained about the illegal transfer of shamlat land to private persons during a Janata Darbar held by chief minister Bhagwant Mann.

The matter was taken to high court by 10 persons, including one Mohan Lal, an occupant of the land, arguing that no party was issued notice and only the state officials were present, where the June 1 decision was taken.

The court was further informed, as per a proceeding, more than 1,100 persons are respondents, who are in possession of the land in five panchayats falling under Majri block, one of which is Majri village.

It was also pointed out that in May 2012, a tribunal presided over by Justice Kuldeep Singh (retired) was constituted. It gave its report, and the recommendations and proceedings arising out of it are still underway before the authorities concerned. The matter of title of the land in question is still pending and records of the same were not called by the financial commissioner, before passing the June 1 order, as per the plea.

“..after a period of 30 years, the impugned order has been passed at the back of all concerned,” the petitioner’s counsel, Parvinder Singh had argued before the court.

State’s counsel had justified passing of the June 1, order arguing that the 1991 order was passed in a “fraudulent manner”.

The court took note of the fact that proceedings arising out of reports of justice Kuldip Singh (retd) tribunal are pending before a coordinate bench. To avoid, passing of conflicting order, the court has referred the matter to same bench, where the earlier proceedings are underway and restrained government from taking any coercive step.