Click - Department of Revenue, Rehabilitation and Disaster ...

[Extract from Punjab Govt. Gaz., dated the 15th February, 2013]GOVERNMENT OF PUNJABDEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND REHABILITATIONAND DISASTER MANAGEMENT(CONSOLIDATION BRANCH)NotificationThe 18th August, 20 12NO.17/4512010/CH.5/14536.-Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court vide order dated 29.5.2012 inCRM NO.23 125 of2011 in/and CRMNo. M-49595 of2007: and CWPNos. 1973,3536,3537,3538 and 3539of2010, CWPNos. 23456 of2011, 3389 of2012 and 10796 of2012,has constituted a Tribunal as under with thepowers of special tribunal to look into unauthorized sale/purchase in favour of private individuals of varioustypes of public land in and around periphery ofChandigarh falling in Punjab and other parts of Punjab which isdescribed in the revenue record as 'Jumla Mushtarka Malkan', 'Shamlat Deh', 'Forest land' and 'Nazoolland' etc., to suggest ways and means for retrieving these lands and give suggestions to initiate civil/criminalproceedings against the officials and the parties who facilitated such transfers from government public lands toprivate ownership:-Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh,former Judge of the Supreme CourtSh. P.N. Aggarwal, AdvocateChairmanMemberSh. Babu Ram Gupta, Advocate would assist the Tribunal by presenting the revenue record divulgingthe nature of the land.The conditions of service, functions, powers and terms of reference of the Hon'ble Tribunal and itsmembers shall be same as laid down in the above mentioned order dated 29.5.2012 of the Hon'ble High Court,a copy of which is attached as 'Annexure' to this notification.India.This will be subject to the outcome ofSLP (Civil) No. 24518 of20 12 pending in the Supreme Court ofN.S. KANG,Financial Commissioner Revenue andSecretary to Government of Punjab,Department of Revenue and Rehabilitationand Disaster Management.

2CRM No. 23125 of20 II in/and CRM No. M-49595 of2007;and CWP Nos. 1973,3536,3537,3538 and 3539 of2010Present:Amicus Curiae:Forthe petitioner(s):For the respondents(s):Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate withMr. Amit Jain, Advocate,Mr. M.L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate withMr. Hemant Sarin, Advocate,Mr. P.S. Bhangu, Advocate,Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, A.G. Punjab withMs. Reeta Kohli, Addl. A.G. PunjabMr. Puneet Bali, Sr. Advocate withMr. Shaurya Sharma, AdvocateMr. Maharaj Kumar, Advocate,Mr. S.N. Saini, Advocate.M.M. KUMAR, Acq. C.J.I. This bunch of petitions have brought to the fore the issue of sale/purchase of various types of publicland which is described in the revenue record as 'Jumla Mlishtarka Malkan·. 'shamlat deh', forest landand 'Nazulland' etc. In the order dated 27-03-2012, passed by this Court a detailed reference was made tothe transaction in respect of one village Mubarikpur and it has been indicated that the public property describedin the revenue record as 'Jumla Mushtarka Malkan Wa Digar Haqdararn, could not be subjected to salebecause its management and control vested in the Gram Panchayal. However, the sale deeds were executedby :he SO called proprietor on the basis of determination of holding of vendors. It has been pointed outthallheRegistrar of Documents and the Deputy Commissioner did nDt bother to protect public property and permittedthe execution of sale deed in respect thereof.2. It would be profitable to read various orders passed at different stages of hearing of these cases.When notice of motion was issued on 5-2-20 I0, the Division Bench has passed the following order:"Counsel for the petitioners submits that the land in dispute is recorded as JlImla MushtarkaMalkan. As per Rule 16 (ii) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention ofFragmentation) Rules, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), land which is earmarked andreserved for common purposes, after imposing a cut from the holding of proprietors is described asJumla Mushtarka Malkan. Rules 16 (ii) further states that such land shall belong to the proprietorsbut vests in the Gram Panchayat for the purpose of management and control. As a consequence, aproprietor can not sell any portion of JlImla Mushtarka Malkan land and the authorities have nojurisdiction to register a sale deed or record a mutation in favour of a vendee. It is submitted thatdespite this legal impediment, respondent NO.5 to 3 I have executed and registered a sale deed oftheiralleged share in Jumla Mushtarka Malkan land of village Mubarikpur in favour of respondent No.32. Despite the petitioners having brought this illegal sale deed to the notice of the concerned authorities,the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner have ignored this fraud with mala fideintent."I have heard counsel for the petitionersand perused the paper book.

3It appears that Jumla Mushtarka Malkan land situated within the revenue estate of villageMubarikpur is being sold with impunity and with the active connivance of revenue authorities. At theoral request of counsel for the petitioners, the Deputy Commissioner, S.A.S. Nagar Mohali is impleadedas respondent No. 33 and the Gram Panchayat, Mubarikpur is impleaded as respondent No. 34. Officeis directed to carry out necessary corrections in the Memorandum of Parties.Notice to show cause to the respondents for 15-2-2010 why the sale deed and the mutatioQ be notcancelled being null, void and contrary to the provisions oflaw.The Deputy Commissioner, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, is directed to appear in person on the next dateof hearing along with the relevant record of the Jumla Mushtarka Malkan land, situated in villageMubarikpur and file his personal affidavit. It is made clear that the respondents shall not alienate theland in dispute of create any third party interest therein.At the asking of the Court, Mr. S.S. Sahu, AAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondentNo. I to 4 and the Deputy Commissioner, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali and prays for time to seek instructions.A copy of this order be handed over to Mr. S.S.Sahu, AAG, Punjab under signaturesSpecial Secretary of this Court."of the3. In pursuance to the aforesaid order, the Deputy Commissioner, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali filed reply on 15-2-2010 and the following order was passed:"Mr. Prabhjot Singh Mand, lAS, Deputy Commissioner, SAS Nagar, Mohali, is present in Courtand has filed a short reply by way of affidavit dated 15-2-2010, which is taken on record. The DeputyCommissioner, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali is directed to examine the transfer of land and sale deeds etc.and furnish the entire report to this Court.Respondents No.5 to 32 and 34 are not served for want of process fee. Let fresh notice beissued for effecting service upon respondents No.5 to 32 and 34, returnable on 10-03-2010.Process dasti only. "4. On 23-02-2012, after hearing the parties, the Division Bench proceeded to pass the following order:"The case in hand, relates to sale of public property, viz., land, admittedly, described, in therevenue record, as Jumla Mushtarka Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran. Rule 16 (ii) of the East PunjabHoldings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949, prescribes that though ownershipof such land vests in proprietors, its management and control lies with the Gram Panchayat. The saledeeds in the present case were executed, by the so called proprietors, on the basis of dubiousdeterminations of shareholdings of venders. The Registrar of documents and the then DeputyCommissioner have not bothered to protect public property and permitted sale of panchayat property.Pursuant to an earlier order, we had sought a response from the Deputy Commissioner. The replyfiled by the then Deputy Commissioner reveals a stand that proprietors have only sold possessoryrights. The reply has been filed by ignoring Rule 16 (ii) of the Rules, as possessory rights of such a landas well as its management and control vest with the Gram Panchayat. The Deputy Commissioner,S.A.S.Nagar, Mohali, who is present in person, is directed to take a decision in the matter, preferably,before the next date of hearing. The Deputy Commissioner shall also file an affidavit setting out thenumber of sale deeds relating to ,%amilal Deh and Jumla Mllshtarka Malkan in Zirakpur, Derabassi,

4Mubarikpur, Bhankarpur snd Majri. It is made clear that this order shall not be construed to be our finalopinion in the matter.To come up on 07-3-2012.A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases."5. A significant stage came when the Deputy Commissioner filed affidavit in pursuance of order dated07-03-2012 disclosing colossal violation of law and the same reads as under:"On 07-03-2012, another order was passed directing the Deputy Commissioner, S.A.S. Nagar,Mohali, to file an affidavit with respect to sale ofShamilat deh and Jumla Mushtarim Malkan land inDistrict S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.The Deputy Commissioner has filed an affidavit, in Court today, setting our details of sale deedsof Shamilat deh and Jumla Mushtarka Malkan land in the district. The Deputy Commissioner hasdirected a total of 858 sale deeds pertaining to Shamilat deh and Jumla Mushtarka Malkan land,registered upto 2012 in District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. A perusal of the affidavit reveals a shockingstate of affairs as approximately 1953 acres of Shamilat Deh/Jumla Mushtarka land, prima facie,belonging to Gram Panchayat, have been sold in and around the periphery of Chandigarh and in theDistrict ofS.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.We are of the firm opinion that a monumental fraud has been played on the rights of the GramPanchayat and public property, held by Gram Panchayats, has been misappropriated by unscrupulousproprietors, in league with vendors, a large number of whom appear to be property dealers, buildersand property developers. We, however, do not express any final opinion as to the right of theparties, but would require the Deputy Commissioner, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, to file a detailed affidavitby 30-03-2012, giving the steps he proposes to take against the vendors, the vendees, the person whoallowed registration of the sale deeds and the Gram Panchayats who did not raise any plea withrespect to their title.Adjourned to 30-03-20 12.At this stage, Shri Som Nath Saini, Advocate, states that the petitioners are in unauthorizedoccupation of 4 acres of panchayat land. The petitioners are directed to file an affidavit whether thisfact is true?We request Shri M. L. Sarin, Senior Advocate, who is present in the Court to assist the Court asan Amicus Curiae, in this case. A copy" of the paper book along with the affidavits and the interimorders passed by this Court be handed over to Shri M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate.A copy ofthis order be handed over to Mr. Amit Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab, under signatures of theCourt Secretary of this Court."6. The aforesaid proceedings were in progress before the Division Bench headed by Rajiv Bhalla, J. andon the request made by Shri M.L.Sarin, Sr. Advocate who was amicus curiae before that Bench and keepingin view the similarity of issue pending before this Court, we directed listing of those cases before us.7. In the proceedings which have been in progress before this Court including CRM No. 23125 of20 II,a number of orders have been passed by this court. It is also appropriate to refer 10 Rule 12 of the PunjabVillage Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 (as applicable to Punjab) [for brevity, 'the Rules'), which

5regulates the sale of land -described in the revenue record as 'shamlat deh '_There are limited purposes forwhich the land codd be sold with the previous approval of the State Government as specified in Rule 12 of theRules. Likewise, Rule 12-A also pe~mits 'transfer of land' to the instrumentality of the State for a publicpurpose. There is no provision either in the Rules or in the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act,1961 (for brevity, 'the Act') pennitting sale of land described as 'shamlat deh' or the land known as 'Nazulland' or 'Jumla Mushtarka Malkan' by the private individuals to other private bodies or individuals. Wewould not like to make any observations on this issue at this stage. However, we would make a reference to theprinciples enunciated by their Lordships ofHon'ble the Supreme Coun highlighting the discharge of higherburden by all public men holding high public office and position. In that regard we place reliance on thejudgment ofHon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Hinch Lal Tewari v. Kamla Devi (2001) 6see 496 and Jagpal Singh and others v. State of Punjab (20ll) Jl see 396. In Jagpal Singh's case(supra), their Lordships of Hon 'ble the Supreme Coun has noted the concern for village common land byplacing reliance on the observations made in the earlier judgment in the case ofChiqurupati VenkataSubbayyav_Paladuge Anjayya. /972 (I) see 52/. We feel that observations made in para 3, 4 and 5 would put thewhole issue in its perspective which reads thus:"3. Since time immemorial there have been common lands inhering in the village communities inIndia, variously called gram sabha land, gram panchayatland, (in many Nonh Indian States), shamlatdeh (in Punjab etc.), mandaveli and poramboke land (in South India), Kalam, Maidan, etc. dependingon the nature of user. These public utility lands in the villages were for centuries used for the commonbenefit of the villagers of the village such as ponds for various purposes e.g. fortheir cattle to drink andbathe, for storing their harvested grain, as grazing ground for the cattle, threshing floor, maidan forplaying by children, carnivals, circuses, ramlila cart stands, water bodies, passages, cremation groundor graveyards, etc. These lands stood vested through local laws in the State, which handed over theirmanagement to Gram SabhasiGram Panchayats. They were generally treated as inalienable in orderthat their status as community land be preserved. There were no doubt some exceptions to this rulewhich permitted the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat to lease out some of this land to landless labourersand members of the Scheduled CastslTribes, but this was only to be done in exceptional cases.4. The protection of commons rights of the villagers were so zealously protected that somelegislation expressly mentioned that even the vesting of the property with the Stale did not mean thaIthe common rights of villagers were lost by such vesting.Thus, in ehiqurupati. Venkata Subbayya V. Paladuge Anjayya, /972 (I) see 52/ (529) thisCourt observed:"It is true that the suit lands in view of Section 3 of the Estates Abolition Act did vest in theGovernment. That by itself does not mean that the rights of the community over it were takenaway. Our attention has not been invited to any provision of law under which the rights of thecommunity over those lands can be said to have been taken away. The rights of the communityover the suit lands were not created by the landholder. Hence those rights cannot be said to havebeen abrogated by Section 3 of the Estates Abolition Act."5. What we have witnessed since independence, however, is that in large parts of the countrythis common village land has been grabbed by unscrupulous persons using muscle power, moneypower or political clout, and in many States now there is not an inch of such land left for the commonuse of the people of the village, though it may exist on paper. People with power and pelf operating in

6villages all over India systematically encroached upon commonal lands and put them to uses totallyinconsistent with its original character, for personal aggrandizement at the cost of the village community.This was done with active connivance of the State authorities and local powerful vested interests andgoondas. This appeal is glaring example of this lamentable state of affairs."8. The State Government is under obligation and is bound to comply with the directions issued by theirLordships ofHon'ble the Supreme Court in para 22 of this judgment.9. In Crl. Misc.No. 23125 of2011 in CRM No. M-49595 of2007, various orders have been passed, whichculminated in the disclosure that the land is in possession of such 60 influential persons and the names of thosepersons have been mentioned in the annexure referred in para 4 of the affidavit dated 20-04-2012 filed by theChief Secretary. A glance on the list of influential persons would indicate that ihe land has been transferred inthe names of Chief Minister, numerous Ministers, DGP and various other police officers. To avoid burdening ofthis order a copy of the list is added to this order which may read its part. Some of the important names are: SISh. V.K. Khanna, lAS (Retd) (21 Acres), Ajit Singh Chatha, lAS (Retd.) (9 Acres) Parkash Singh Badal, ChiefMinister (5 Acres); Surinder Singh Kairon and family members (58/60 Acres),Abhay Singh Jagat, DGP(Retd.)(2.5 Acres); Guizar Singh, Ex-Minister(1 2 Acres); Dr. Col. Kanwaljit Singh and family (65 Acres) and JagmohanSingh Kang (5/6 Acres).10. Another affidavit dated 16-5-2012, was filed by the Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab,disclosing that in compliance with the order dated 1-5-2012 passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. No. 23125 of20 II, a committee was constituted comprising Financial Commissioner Revenue; Financial CommissionerRural Development and Panchayats; Director Local Government; Principal Chief Conservator of Forests; andDeputy Commissioner, Mohali, to report whether the land in possession of 60 influential persons had at anystage been Government/Public land. The aforementioned Committee held various meetings on 4-5-2012,7-5-2012 and 9-5-2012 and submitted its report on 15-5-2012, which is annexed as Annexure' A' with theaffidavit dated 16-5-2012. The conclusion arrived at by the Committee has been summed up in para 4 of theaffidavit dated 16-5-2012, which reads as under:"4. That the committee has concluded as under :-(a) that except in the 7 cases as mentioned below, the land in the possession of all other individualswas never government/public land:-S.No.1.2.3.4.5.6.7.S. No.as perthe report9182130313239Name of the ownerloccupantSmt. Surjit Kaur Wlo S. Navtej SinghS. Baldev Singh S. P. retd. U.T, Chandigarh.S. Gurcharan Singh Sio S. Lal SinghS. Gurmeet Singh and S. Mukhtiar SinghS. Jagbir SinghS. Daljit Singh Dhillon Sio S.Lal SinghS. Surjit Singha (i) However, as regard Entry No. 50, the entries in Column No.7 and 8 are as under :-"In Khasra No. 90119 (6-16), 12/1/1 (0-13), 1012 (7-19), 11/1 (1-17), Y, (2-10),2 (5-13), 91116/2/1

7(3-4), 15/1/2.(0-15) Total 29 Bighas 7 Biaswa, Dinesh Singh and Sumedh Singh sons ofRameshChander Singh are equal Co-sharers as per Jamabandi 2005-06 Kh/Kh. 452/480, 453/489, 454/490. The whole of this area, vide Mutation No. 15525 is entered in the name ofPUDA. However,the decision regarding this mutation is pending till date.""As per the Revenue record, this land has never vested in the ownership of Forest! NazooVShamlat! Municipal/ Government Land."b) That in the case of three persons i.e. Sh. Sumedh Singh Saini, Sh. Shivinder Singh Brar and S.Harjinder Singh (mentioned at Sr. No. 49 and 51 of the list) the land in question was Jumala MushtarkaMalkan Hasab Rasad Rakba Khewat created at the time of consolidation in 1971 by imposing a prorata cut on the land owners. Thereafter, vide order dated 16-1-1986 of the Consolidation Onicer,Ropar the Khewat was dismantled and shares were apportioned to the individual proprietors. Thethree persons mentioned above have purchases the land from the original land owners. Further, asreported in the detailed report at Sr. No. 49 and 51, these properties as per revenue record were nevervested in the ownership of Forest! Nazool/Shamlat/Municipal/ Government land. The report of thecommittee so constituted submitted vide diary No. 93 I, dated 15-05-2012 is enclosed herewith asAnneuxre-A."II. After perusing the list of60 influential persons along with the affidavit of Chief Secretary dated 20-04-2012 and 16-05-2012, we were fortified in our belief that the matter requires to be probed by an independentTribunal which should be presided over by an eminent judge of either Supreme Court or from this Court. Aperusal of some orders would show that thinking process. We were convinced with the idea of setting upan independent tribunal for the simple reason that those who are at the helm of affairs would not be able tojudge their own cause which is common to the cause of thousands of other people as has been pointed out bythe affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. If a committee of Officers' is appointedby the Government they may not be able to act fairly for the reason that creature cannot be greater than thecreator.12. It is in the backdrop of aforesaid situation that we are compelled to proceed with the idea of setting upa Tribunal and for that purpose we requested Mr.M.L. Sarin and Mr. Arun Jain, learned Senior counsel andamicus curiae, to finalize the terms of reference. A draft of terms of reference was handed over to Mr. AshokAggarwal, learned Advocate General, Punjab who has vehemently opposed the idea of setting up of anyTribunal by stating that the report ofShri Chander Sekhar, IPS,is available and the Tribunal would not be ableto do function any better as the record is already before this Court. Mr. Aggarwal further submits that in somecases the matters are already pending before the statutory authorities, including the High Court as well asHon'ble the Supreme Court. The argument seems to be that the 'Special Tribunal', which is proposed to beconstituted, would not serve any public purpose.13. On the other hand, learned Amicus Curiae have highlighted the usefulness of the constitution of a'Special Tribunal' particularly, in the light of the fact that once the top bureaucrats, police officials and the topmost political personalities of the State are the beneficiaries, then to opine adversely against persons similarlysituated would also not be possible as the same could be cited as a precedence for deciding their own cases. Inother words, if a case of ordinary citizen is to be decided by the statutory authorities, it would not be possible forthem decide against even thousands of others because it would ultimately adversely affect the cases of influentialpersons. It is seen from the affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner that thousands of sale deeds only from

6villages all over India systematically encroached upon com mona I lands and put them to uses totallyinconsistent with its original character, for personal aggrandizement at the cost of the village community.This was done with active connivance of the State authorities and local powerful vested interests andgoondas. This appeal is glaring example of this lamentable state of affairs."8. The State Government is under obligation and is bound to comply with the directions issued by theirLordships of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in para 22 ofthisjudgmenl.9. In Crl. Misc.No. 23125 of2011 in CRM No. M-49595 of2007, various orders have been passed, whichculminated in the disclosure that the land is in possession of such 60 influential persons and ~he names of thosepersons have been mentioned in the annexure referred in para 4 of the affidavit dated 20-04-2012 filed by theChief Secretary. A glance on the list of influential persons would indicate that ihe land has been transferred inthe names of Chief Minister, numerous Ministers, DGP and various other police officers. To avoid burdening ofthis order a copy of the list is added to this order which may read its part. Some of the important names are: S/Sh. V.K. Khanna, lAS (Retd) (21 Acres), Ajit Singh Chatha, lAS (Retd.) (9 Acres) Parkash Singh Badal, ChiefMinister (5 Acres); Surinder Singh Kairon and family members (58/60 Acres), Abhay Singh Jagat, DGP (Reid.)(2.5 Acres); Guizar Singh, Ex-Minister( 12Acres); Dr. Col. Kanwaljit Singh and family (65 Acres) and JagmohanSingh Kang (5/6 Acres).10. Another affidavit dated 16-5-2012, was filed by the Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab,disclosing that in compliance with the order dated 1-5-2012 passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. No. 23125 of20 II, a committee was constituted comprising Financial Commissioner Revenue; Financial CommissionerRural Development and Panchayats; Director Local Government; Principal Chief Conservator of Forests; andDeputy Commissioner, Mohali, to report whether the land in possession of 60 influential persons had at anystage been Government/Public land. The aforementioned Committee held various meetings on 4-5-2012,7-5-2012 and 9-5-2012 and submitted its report on 15-5-2012, which is annexed as Annexure 'A' with theaffidavit dated 16-5-2012. The conclusion arrived at by the Committee has been summed up in para 4 of theaffidavit dated 16-5-2012, which reads as under:"4. That the committee has concluded as under :-(a) that except in the 7 cases as mentioned below, the land in the possession of all other individualswas never government/public land:-S.No.I.2.3.4.5.6.7.S. No.as perthe report9182130313239Name of the owner/occupantSml. Surjit Kaur W/o S. Navtej SinghS. Baldev Singh S. P. retd. U.T, Chandigarh.S. Gurcharan Singh S/o S. Lal SinghS. Gurmeet Singh and S. Mukhtiar SinghS. Jagbir SinghS. Daljit Singh Dhillon S/o Solal SinghS. Surjit Singha (i) However, as regard Entry No. 50, the entries in Column No.7 and 8 are as under :-"In Khasra No. 90//9 (6-16), 12/1/1 (0-13), 10/2 (7-19), 11/1 (1-17), It, (2-10),2 (5-13), 91//612/1

7(3-4), 15/1/2 (0-15) Total 29 Bighas 7 Biaswa, Dinesh Singh and Sumedh Singh sons of RameshChander Singh are equal Co-sharers as per Jamabandi 2005-06 KhlKh. 452/480, 453/489, 454/490. The whole of this area, vide Mutation No. 15525 is entered in the name ofPUDA. However,the decision regarding this mutation is pending till date.""As per the Revenue record, this land has never vested in the ownershipShamlat! Municipal/ GovemmentLand."of Forest! Nazool/b) That in the case of three persons i.e. Sh. Sumed.h Singh Saini, Sh. Shivinder Singh Brar and S.Harjinder Singh (mentioned at Sr. No. 49 and 51 ofthe list) the land in question was Jumala MushtarkaMalkan Hasab Rasad Rakba Khewat created at the time of consolidation in 1971 by imposing a prorata cut on the land owners. Thereafter, vide order dated 16-1-1986 of the Consolidation Officer,Ropar the Khewat was dismantled and shares were apportioned to the individual proprietors. Thethree persons mentioned above have purchases the land from the original land owners. Further, asreported in the detailed report at Sr. No. 49 and 51, these properties as per revenue record were nevervested in the ownership of Forest! Nazool/Shamlat!Municipal/ Govemment land. The report of thecommittee so constituted submitted vide diary No. 93 I, dated 15-05-2012 is enclosed herewith asAnneuxre-A."II. After perusing the list of60 influential persons along with the affidavit of Chief Secretary dated 20-04-2012 and 16-05-2012, we were fortified in our belief that the matter requires to be probed by an independentTribunal which should be presided over by an eminent judge of either Supreme Court or from this Court. Aperusal of some orders would show that thinking process. We were convinced with the idea of setting upan independent tribunal for the simple reason that those who are at the helm of afTairs would not be able tojudge their own cause which is common to the cause of thousands of other people as has been pointed out bythe affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. If a committee of Officers' is appointedby the Government they may not be able to act fairly for the reason that creature cannot be greater than thecreator.12. It is in the backdrop of aforesaid situation that we are compelled to proceed with the idea of setting upa Tribunal and for that purpose we requested Mr.M.L. Sarin and Mr. Arun Jain, leamed Senior counsel andamicus curiae, to finalize the terms of reference. A draft of terms of reference was handed over to Mr. AshokAggarwal, leamed Advocate General, Punjab who has vehemently opposed the idea of setting up of anyTribunal by stating that the report ofShri Chander Sekhar, IPS,is available and the Tribunal would not be ableto do function any better as the record is already before this Court. Mr. Aggarwal further submits that in somecases the matters are already pending before the statutory authorities, including the High Court as well asHon'ble the Supreme Court. The argument seems to be that the 'Special Tribunal', which is proposed to beconstituted, would not serve any public purpose.13. On the other hand, learned Amicus Curiae have highlighted the usefulness of the constitution of a'Special Tribunal' particularly, in the light of the fact that once the top bureaucrats, police officials and the topmost political personalities of the State are the beneficiaries, then to opine adversely against persons similarlysituated would also not be possible as the same could be cited as a precedence for deciding their own cases. Inother words, if a case of ordinary citizen is to be decided by the statutory authorities, it would not be possible forthem decide against even thousands of others because it would ultimately adversely affect the cases of influentialpersons. It is seen from the affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner that thousands of sale deeds only from

8one district have been executed. Therefore, there is ample justification for a probe by an independent body likethe Special Tribunal, which is proposed by this Court in various orders. It has also been highlighted that Crl.Misc. No. 49595-M of 2007 is pending before this Court since the year 2007 wherein the report of ShriChander Sp.khar, lAS, has been attached and no effective steps have been taken by the State either to adoptthe report as an official document or to initiate proceedings against anyone named in the report. Therefore, ithas become necessary in the larger public interest to set up a Special Tribunal. We approve the aforesaid lineof argument and accept that there is dire necessity of setting up an independent Tribunal.14. During the course of the proceedings before this Court the name ofa Former judge of Hon'ble theSupreme Court. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh was suggested and we have been informed that his Lordshiphas readily agreed to function as the Chairman of the Tribunal. Two names of the Members of the Bar, namely,Shri P.N. Aggarwal and Shri Babu Ram Gupta have also been suggested. They have also readily agreed tofunction as Members of the Tribunal Accordingly, we direct that there shall be two members Tribunal. Hon'bleMr Justice Kuldip Singh, Former Judge of Hon'ble the Supreme Court shall function as the Chairman of theTribunal along with Sh. P.N.Aggarwal, Advocate who would function as Member. We make it clear thatopinion of the Chairman shall be final. Shri Babu Ram Gupta, Advocate, would assist the Tribunal by presentingthe revenue record divulging the nature of the land. The Tribunal shall suggest ways and means for retrieving'shamlat deh' land, 'lunda mllshlarka malkan' land and various other types of land such as 'Nazul land','Forest land' etc. in and around the periphery ofChandigarh and other parts of the State of Punjab as directedby 'Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh's case (supra). The Tribunal shall send suggestions to initiatecriminal action against the violators.15. Keeping in view the aforesaid, we proceed to set out the following terms of reference:(A) A Tribunal is hereby constituted comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, a former Judge ofthe Supreme Court and Sh. P. N. Aggarwal, Advocate, which is hereby appointed with the power ofSpecial Tribunal. The Tribunal shall have the powers to summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses,including the parties interested or any of them and to compel the production of documents by the samemeans and so far as may be in the same manner as is provided in the case of Civil Court under theCode of Civil Procedure, 1908.(B) The Tribunal may take assistance of Departments of Revenue Punjab, Rural Developmentand Panchayats, Punjab, Forest Department, Punjab and D.OP. Punjab to scrutinize the old recordsand submit village wise fact finding report in respect of above land in and around the periphery ofChandigarh and other parts of the State 9fPunjab. Sh. B.R. Gupta, a Former District & sessions Judgeshall assist and aid the Tribunal. It should also suggest effective steps which need to be taken to getfree the land from encroachers in and around the periphery ofChandigarh falling in the area of Punjaband other parts of the Punjab.(C) The Tribunal shall utilize the services of Special QaunungoslPatwari Moharrirs to prepareexcerpts village wise showing kind of government land/ shamlat land/ forest land/ Nazulland in andaround periphery ofChandigarh and other parts of Punjab and the basis on which ownership of suchland came to be vested in favour of individuals (s).The Tribunal shall suggest measures for retrievingsuch government land /shamlat land/forest landlNazulland in and around the periphery ofChandigarhand other parts of Punjab as per the judgment of Jagpal Singh's case (supra).(D) It has also been noticed that some matters are pending before the authorities under the Punjab

9Village Common Lands (Regulation)Act 1961, East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Pr~vention ofFragmentation) Act, 1948, the Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 andthe Punjab Gram P,mchayat (Common Purposes Land) Eviction and Rent Recovery Act, 1976 as wellas civil suits, the Special Tribunal would suggest the mechanism for early disposal of these proceedingsso that the matter is no unduly delayed.(E) The Special Tribunal shall also suggest what civil/criminal proceedings may be taken against theofficials and parties who facilitated such transfers from government/public land to private ownership.The Special Tribunal would also suggest the steps which may prevent such transfers of government!public land in future.(F) The Tribunal shall keep this Court informed of all major developments by filling quarterly statusreports and may, if so desired, take special orders from this Court.(G) All organs, agencies, departments and agents of the State shall extend all cooperation necessaryfor the effective functioning of the Tribunal.(H) The State Government is directed to provide all facilities to conduct inquiry in its fullest measureby the Tribunal so constituted by extending all necessary official and legal assistance.(I) Besides the State of Punjab shall provide necessary office infrastructure and requisite staff forthe Tribunal within 30 days.(J) The Presiding Officer of the Tribunal so constituted shall be assisted by serving or retired Districtand Session Judge who will be well conversant with Punjabi language. Accordingly, we appoint Sh.Babu Ram Gupta who shall assist and aid the Tribunal.(K) The Tribunal so constituted shall be entitled to remuneration, allowances, perKSand facilities asadmissible to a judge of the Supreme Court. Whereas S/Sh. P.N. Aggarwal, and Babu Ram Gupta,shall be entitled to a lump sum amount ofRs. 1,25,000/- plus a Corrella or Honda City Car or equivalentamount along with a driver.16. We further issue the following directions:(a) The Registrar of documents in the State of Punjab shall not entertain any document from nowonwards for registration nor registered any document which proposes the sale, lease, transfer of anySham/at land, JlIm/a mllshtarka ma/kall land, Nazool land etc. and any other government land withwhatever name it might be called. Necessary instructions in that regard be issued by the concerneddepartment within one week.(b) No dispute in respect of such lands as mentioned in para (a) shall be entertained by the statutoryauthorities under the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 and East Punjab Holdings(Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. No Civil court shall entertain any civil suitnor grant any interim order even in pending cases till further orders of this Court.(c) No mutation shall be entered by the revenue officers from now onwards on the basis of saledeeds involving any such land as referred to in para (a) above.17. The respondent State is directed to comply with the direction within a period of two weeks.The officefor functioning of the Tribunal shall be given along with Secretarial staff as is indicated in the term of referencewithin a period of two weeks preferably at the Punjab Civil Secretariat, Punjab. The other directions whichhave been reproduced in the preceding para shall also be compiled with and the Tribunal may exercise all such

LOpowers which have been mentioned in the preceding para. Open area for functioning the Tribunal be providedpreferably at the Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh. The initial tenure of the Tribunal shall be four monthsfrom the date it starts functioning. If some more time is required then appropriate request be sent to the Court.18. We place on record our thanks to the Amicus Curiae Shri M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate and Shr; AmnJain, Senior Advocate as well as Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, learned Advocate General, Punjab for rendering ableassistance to the Bench.19. Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, learned Advocate General, Punjab, states that similar Writ Petition Nos. 33890f2012 and 23456 of2011 are pending before this Court, which are listed for hearing on 17-08~20 12 and 23-07-2012 respectively, and the same may also be tagged with this bunch of petitions. We direct the Registry to listthese two writ petitions on 31-05-2012 after informing the date of preponement of hearing of these cases to thelearned counsel for both the parties.20. The Registry is directed that photocopies of each of the petition and all the interlocutory orders ofevery paper book be sent to the Tribunal including the order which has been passed today21. A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges.Sd/-ALOK SINGHJUDGEACTINGSd/-M.M. KUMARCHIEF JUSTICEO/53/02-20/3/Pb.Govt. Press. S.A.S. Nagar