BIKRAM SINGH Vs. SURY PAL SINGH AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that an order passed on the 23rd of October, 1954 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rasra, be quashed.

(2.) On 24th July, 1952 the Petitioner, along with opposite-parties Nos. 1 and 2, made an application before the Panchayati Adalat, Haldharpur, under Section 82 of the Panchayat Raj Act in which it was stated that the applicant, Vikram Singh, had been in possession over the disputed plot and that he was a hereditary tenant of the said plot. The opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 to this petition had no interest in the said plot but in the revenue papers their names had been incorrectly recorded by the Patwari. By means of the said application it is prayed that the Panchayati Adalat should declare the applicant to be the hereditary tenant of the plot. The opposite-parties Nos. 1 and 2 are purported to have signed this application. After the application had been filed, statements of opposite parties 1 and 2 are alleged to have been recorded by the Panchayati Adalat and thereafter the compromise was accepted. The Adalat passed an order under Section 82, declared the applicant a hereditary tenant of the disputed plot and further directed that the Patwari should correct the papers accordingly. The above order was passed by the Panchayati Adalat on the 14th September, 1952. In the year 1954 a revision was filed in the court of the S.D.M., Rasra against the said order of the Panchayati Adalat dated the 14th September, 1952 and on 28th July, 1954 the S.D.M. Rasra rejected the revision on the ground that it had been filed beyond time and that the Petitioners did not appear on the date of hearing in support of the petition. Thereafter, the opposite-parties 1 and 2 moved the S.D.M. for setting aside the order passed by the Panchayati Adalat on the ground that they had no knowledge of the proceedings, they had never affixed their thumb-marks on the compromise and that their statements had never been recorded by the Panchayati Adalat. It was also prayed that the original application in revision, which was dismissed for default, should be restored as opposite-parties had no knowledge of the date of hearing of the revision. The S.D.M. Rasra allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Panchayati Adalat of the 14th Sept., 1952 on the 23rd October, 1954 on the finding that the opposite-parties never affixed their signature either on the compromise or on their statements purported to have been recorded by the Panchayati Adalat. The S.D.M. was of opinion that the conduct of the panches and the Sarpanch was very suspicious. He, therefore, allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the Panchayati Adalat.

(3.) In the present writ petition it is firstly contended that the S.D.M. had no jurisdiction to allow the revision under Section 85 of the Panchayat Raj Act. Section 85 of the Act provides that--