{"id":261629,"date":"2009-02-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gram-panchayat-nangal-chhanga-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-4-february-2009"},"modified":"2019-04-13T05:09:46","modified_gmt":"2019-04-12T23:39:46","slug":"gram-panchayat-nangal-chhanga-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-4-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gram-panchayat-nangal-chhanga-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-4-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"Gram Panchayat Nangal Chhanga vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 4 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Gram Panchayat Nangal Chhanga vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 4 February, 2009<\/div>\n
Civil Writ Petition No. 12764 of 2008                  1\n\n         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA\n                       AT CHANDIGARH\n\n                                 Civil Writ Petition No. 12764 of 2008\n                                 Date of decision:- 4.2.2009\n\nGram Panchayat Nangal Chhanga                          ...petitioner.\n\n                          Versus\n\nThe State of Punjab and others                         ...respondents.\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH\n\nPresent:     Mr.T.P. singh, Advocate\n             for the petitioner.\n\n             Mr. Parveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab\n             for respondents No. 1 to 5.\n\n             Mr. J.R. Mittal, Senior Advocate with\n             Mr. Kashmir Singh, Advocate and\n             Mr. M.L. Saini, Advocate\n             for respondents No. 6.\n\n                   ****\n<\/pre>\n
RANJIT SINGH J.\n<\/p>\n
\n
             The petitioner has filed a writ petition seeking writ of<\/p>\n
certiorari for quashing the order dated 23.5.2008 containing<\/p>\n
endorsement       dated    24.6.2008    whereby the     appeal filed     by<\/p>\n
respondent No. 6 has been restored.\n<\/p>\n
             It is alleged that the original zimni order dated 23.5.2008,<\/p>\n
Annexure P-4, was tampered.             Plea is that the appeal filed by<\/p>\n
respondent No.6 was dismissed on merit but subsequently it was<\/p>\n
shown as having been dismissed for non prosecution due to absence<\/p>\n
of the counsel.\n<\/p>\n
             The case relates to a petition filed by respondent No.6<\/p>\n
under Section 11 of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act,<\/p>\n
1961 (hereinafter called the Act) for declaring him owner of 34 kanals
\n Civil Writ Petition No. 12764 of 2008                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
of a land belonging to Gram Panchayat.               This application was<\/p>\n
dismissed by the Collector against which respondent No.6 filed a<\/p>\n
statutory appeal. This appeal was numbered as 188 of 2007. The<\/p>\n
appeal was heard on 3.5.2008 when the counsel for respondent No.<\/p>\n
6 did not come present.          The Joint Development Commissioner<\/p>\n
exercising the powers of Commissioner (Respondent No.2) after<\/p>\n
hearing the appeal and perusing the record, dismissed the same. It<\/p>\n
is alleged that the zimni order in this regard was recorded and was<\/p>\n
signed also. It is pleaded that the counsel for Gram Panchayat filed<\/p>\n
an application for supplying certified copy of the detailed judgment.<\/p>\n
The Reader of the Court of respondent No.2 continued to tell the<\/p>\n
counsel of the Gram Panchayat that the detailed order was being<\/p>\n
dictated and is under preparation. Respondent No.6 subsequently<\/p>\n
appears to have filed an application,       copy of which was supplied to<\/p>\n
the counsel for the Gram Panchayat, praying that the appeal be re-<\/p>\n
heard and it was wrongly dismissed in his absence. The counsel for<\/p>\n
the Gram Panchayat statedly informed the counsel for respondent<\/p>\n
No.6 to file the same application later as the High court was on<\/p>\n
vacation. The counsel for the Gram Panchayat was later handed<\/p>\n
over the copy of order dated 23.5.2008 containing an endorsement<\/p>\n
dated 24.6.2008, which was an order restoring the appeal though he<\/p>\n
was awaiting to receive certified copy of the detailed judgment<\/p>\n
deciding the appeal on merits.          It is thus urged that original order<\/p>\n
dated 23.5.2008 was tampered with and the appeal was shown to<\/p>\n
have been dismissed in default in stead of being dismissed on merit.<\/p>\n
It is averred that the petitioner has been able to obtain the copy of<\/p>\n
the order with great difficulty and has filed the present writ petition
\n Civil Writ Petition No. 12764 of 2008                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
making prayer for quashing the order, Annexures P-2 and P-4.<\/p>\n
Prayer further is to issue writ of mandamus directing respondent<\/p>\n
No.1 to take legal action against all the persons involved.<\/p>\n
             During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner has drawn my attention to Annexure P-7, which is an<\/p>\n
application given by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat seeking<\/p>\n
inquiry against respondent No.2.           Annexure P-7 contains an<\/p>\n
endorsement reading “to enquire into the role of reader and submit<\/p>\n
report within 10 days”. From this, counsel submits that the inquiry in<\/p>\n
this case has already been held, which is pending decision before<\/p>\n
the Secretary. It is in this background, the prayer is for issuance of a<\/p>\n
mandamus to the official respondent to take action against<\/p>\n
respondent No.2 or the Reader for the illegality committed as<\/p>\n
disclosed in the petition.\n<\/p>\n
             The facts as disclosed in the petition may indicate that<\/p>\n
disputed questions of facts are being raised but the reply filed on<\/p>\n
behalf of respondent No.2 would show that these averments as<\/p>\n
made in the petition have almost been conceded in the reply filed by<\/p>\n
respondent No.2. In the preliminary objection, it is stated that the<\/p>\n
allegations are totally incorrect but at the same time it is conceded<\/p>\n
that originally the appeal was ordered to be dismissed orally. It is<\/p>\n
thus stated that after some time the counsel for the appellant came<\/p>\n
and brought to the notice of respondent No.2 that in the absence of<\/p>\n
appellant’s counsel, the appeal could be dismissed in default only<\/p>\n
and not on merits. Respondent No.2 then states to have changed<\/p>\n
the order dismissing the appeal as entered in the zimni order to that<\/p>\n
of dismissed in default.       It is also disclosed that counsel for the
\n Civil Writ Petition No. 12764 of 2008                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
appellant was advised to file application for restoration which he did<\/p>\n
and ultimately the appeal was restored.\n<\/p>\n
             This reply would not leave any doubt about the factual<\/p>\n
position and would reveal serious illegality. This action on the part of<\/p>\n
respondent No.2 being illegal cannot be sustained. It may have now<\/p>\n
to be seen as to what would be the fate of the case where an order is<\/p>\n
pronounced but Judgment is not written.           The submission by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order pronounced should<\/p>\n
be given effects to. This may not be a course which can legally be<\/p>\n
adopted.\n<\/p>\n
             While dealing with somewhat similar situation Division<\/p>\n
Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 12912 of 2003 titled<\/p>\n
Court of its own motion versus State of Haryana and others<\/p>\n
decided on 15.10.2004 has held after referring to various provisions<\/p>\n
of law and cases that mandatory ingredients for a ‘judgment’ to be<\/p>\n
valid in the eyes of law are as under:\n<\/p>\n
             “(1) the judgment needs to be drawn up containing the<\/p>\n
             points for determination, the decision thereon and the<\/p>\n
             reasons in support of the decision;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (2) the judgment is to be written in the language of the<\/p>\n
             Court or in English and has to be of a specific date and<\/p>\n
             duly signed by the Presiding Officer of the Court at the<\/p>\n
             time it is to be pronounced as well;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (3) the judgment is required to be pronounced in an open<\/p>\n
             court either by dictation or by reading out the relevant and<\/p>\n
             operative\/concluding part thereof;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (4) when the “judgment” is pronounced by reading out the
\n Civil Writ Petition No. 12764 of 2008                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
             relevant and\/or operative part thereof, the whole judgment<\/p>\n
             or its copy is required to be made available immediately<\/p>\n
             for the perusal of the parties or their advocates.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
             The Division Bench has also referred to large number of<\/p>\n
precedents to explain the meaning of word ‘judgment’, ultimately to<\/p>\n
hold that mere pronouncement of a judgment could not amount to<\/p>\n
judgments either in terms of the expression ‘judgment’ as defined in<\/p>\n
the Code of Civil Procedure             or in Section 353<\/a> of the Code of<\/p>\n
Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is also observed that where not even a<\/p>\n
single mandatory step was taken which finally culminates into a valid<\/p>\n
‘judgment’, it may not be open to be called a ‘judgment’. Such a<\/p>\n
judgment was held to be in flagrant violation of various judicial<\/p>\n
pronouncements made by different Courts explaining as to what<\/p>\n
constitute a valid ‘judgment’. Court ultimately observed that it would<\/p>\n
not have any hesitation in holding that by signing and delivering the<\/p>\n
judgments and at the same time pronouncing them, the person has<\/p>\n
committed fraud on its own Court. Subsequently this view of the<\/p>\n
Division Bench was followed in another Civil Writ           Petition No.<\/p>\n
12055 of 2005 decided on 14.5.2008 titled Court of its own<\/p>\n
motion versus State of Punjab and others.\n<\/p>\n
             As to what course now is required to be adopted can also<\/p>\n
be discerned from the observation made by this Court in CWP No.<\/p>\n
12912 of 2003. The Court observed that by mere pronouncing of a<\/p>\n
judgment which never existed either factually or in the eyes of law,<\/p>\n
the person pronouncing the same may give rise to a legitimate<\/p>\n
expectations to one or other litigant party. However, the Court went<\/p>\n
on to observe that it cannot overlook the fact that the party who had
\n Civil Writ Petition No. 12764 of 2008                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
suffered this illusory judgment had a right to know the reasons which<\/p>\n
went against him so as to propound its case before the appellate<\/p>\n
forum. It was accordingly noticed that the hardship, if at all, would lie<\/p>\n
on both sides. The Court ultimately viewed that to stop perpetuating<\/p>\n
fraud upon judicial system as a whole and to show brave and honest<\/p>\n
face to the litigants, it must knock down the needle of suspicion<\/p>\n
created by reckless, irresponsible and fraudulent acts of the Court<\/p>\n
concerned in the said case by pronouncing a series of non-existent<\/p>\n
‘judgment’. It accordingly directed that all those ‘judgment’ shown to<\/p>\n
have been decided where there was no judgment in existence would<\/p>\n
stand revived forthwith. All such cases were re-listed for adjudication<\/p>\n
before the competent Court and the dates in this regard were duly<\/p>\n
notified and intimated to the litigant parties through their counsel.<\/p>\n
             Thus this Court opted for fresh adjudication by the<\/p>\n
present Presiding Officers of the Court though the cases were such<\/p>\n
where judgments were pronounced but not written or delivered. This<\/p>\n
seems to be a fair course open to be adopted.               As held, mere<\/p>\n
pronouncing of a judgment cannot be termed as a ‘judgment’ in the<\/p>\n
eyes of law and to give fair chance to both the litigating parties, the<\/p>\n
matter must receive a fresh look by the present competent authority.<\/p>\n
The present writ petition would deserve to be allowed and the<\/p>\n
impugned order is set aside.            The case is remanded back to the<\/p>\n
present incumbent (respondent No.2) to decide the same afresh after<\/p>\n
affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties. It may cause<\/p>\n
hardship to the petitioner but this is the fair course open.         This<\/p>\n
situation is because of the doing of the authority and the party has no<\/p>\n
contribution in it. The action of respondent No.2 which has led to this
\n Civil Writ Petition No. 12764 of 2008                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
unsavoury situation cannot be left at that. He is the senior officer of<\/p>\n
Indian Administrative Service and is expected to be aware of the<\/p>\n
procedures. Even otherwise he was required to acquaint himself with<\/p>\n
the legal procedures as he was exercising quasi judicial functions.<\/p>\n
He would have known the legal position that order once pronounced<\/p>\n
could not have been changed in the manner he did. He has not<\/p>\n
acquitted himself well even if he has done so being ignorant of the<\/p>\n
legal position. It is for the competent authority to see what action is<\/p>\n
called for. On an application made by the petitioner, the inquiry has<\/p>\n
already been directed. It is expected from the State that it will take<\/p>\n
this inquiry to logical conclusion and take action against all<\/p>\n
responsible for this illegality committed.\n<\/p>\n
             The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
\n
February 4, 2009                                 ( RANJIT SINGH )\nrts                                                   JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Gram Panchayat Nangal Chhanga vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 4 February, 2009 Civil Writ Petition No. 12764 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 12764 of 2008 Date of decision:- 4.2.2009 Gram Panchayat Nangal Chhanga …petitioner. Versus The State […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-261629","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGram Panchayat Nangal Chhanga vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 4 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gram-panchayat-nangal-chhanga-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-4-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gram Panchayat Nangal Chhanga vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 4 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gram-panchayat-nangal-chhanga-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-4-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-04-12T23:39:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gram-panchayat-nangal-chhanga-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-4-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gram-panchayat-nangal-chhanga-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-4-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gram Panchayat Nangal Chhanga vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 4 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-12T23:39:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gram-panchayat-nangal-chhanga-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-4-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1744,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gram-panchayat-nangal-chhanga-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-4-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gram-panchayat-nangal-chhanga-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-4-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gram-panchayat-nangal-chhanga-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-4-february-2009\",\"name\":\"Gram Panchayat Nangal Chhanga vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 4 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-12T23:39:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gram-panchayat-nangal-chhanga-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-4-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gram-panchayat-nangal-chhanga-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-4-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gram-panchayat-nangal-chhanga-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-4-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gram Panchayat Nangal Chhanga vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 4 February, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Gram Panchayat Nangal Chhanga vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 4 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gram-panchayat-nangal-chhanga-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-4-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gram Panchayat Nangal Chhanga vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 4 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gram-panchayat-nangal-chhanga-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-4-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-04-12T23:39:46+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gram-panchayat-nangal-chhanga-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-4-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gram-panchayat-nangal-chhanga-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-4-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gram Panchayat Nangal Chhanga vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 4 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-12T23:39:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gram-panchayat-nangal-chhanga-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-4-february-2009"},"wordCount":1744,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gram-panchayat-nangal-chhanga-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-4-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gram-panchayat-nangal-chhanga-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-4-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gram-panchayat-nangal-chhanga-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-4-february-2009","name":"Gram Panchayat Nangal Chhanga vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 4 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-12T23:39:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gram-panchayat-nangal-chhanga-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-4-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gram-panchayat-nangal-chhanga-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-4-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gram-panchayat-nangal-chhanga-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-4-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gram Panchayat Nangal Chhanga vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 4 February, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/261629","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=261629"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/261629\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=261629"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=261629"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=261629"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}