SHRIRAM ANTARAM BURANDE Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original plaintiff has filed this Second Appeal challenging reversing appellate court judgment. He filed Regular Civil Suit No. 13/1985 against State of Maharashtra through Collector, Gadchiroli and against Gram Panchayat, claiming declaration that the orders passed by the Revenue Authority treating him as encroacher were not valid; that he was lessee of the land in dispute and that he could not have been evicted from the said land. Suit was opposed by the Gram Panchayat who pointed out that land vested in it and it was not given on lease in accordance with law to the present appellant. The trial court framed various issues and held that the plaintiff could not prove that suit land was validly leased out to him. It further held that the proceedings conducted by the revenue authorities were not illegal. It further held that the State Government, original defendant no.1 proved that Gram Panchayat had no right to lease out the suit property to appellant /plaintiff without prior permission of the State Government and Zilla Parishad and lease therefore was void. It also held that civil court had jurisdiction. It held that plaintiff could not prove that order of his eviction from the suit land was void. It however, held that the plaintiff was entitled to regularisation because he was a citizen situated below the poverty line and hence the policy decision of the State Government at Exh.97 was applicable to him. The original defendant no.2 Gram Panchayat then filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 11/1992 before the Additional District Judge, Gadchiroli and on 16.10.1993 the said appeal came to be allowed. The lower appellate court held that regularisation of encroachment was not the relief claimed in the suit. Thereafter, the present Second Appeal has been admitted by this court by generally indicating that all grounds raised in the memo of appeal are the grounds for admission.

(2.) I have heard Advocate Shri De, for appellant and Advocate Shri Thengre, for respondent no.1. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appeared for respondent no.2.

(3.) Advocate Shri De, argued that the defence of Gram Panchayat that present appellant had another house in very same village was found to be incorrect by the trial court, since the said other house belongs to his father. He states that this finding is lost sight by the lower appellate court, and lower appellate court has only considered the part of the evidence to hold that the appellant was having another house in very same village. It is further argued that as per Exh.97, it is clear that the State Government itself had framed a policy to construct houses for poor persons and for that purpose government was making lands available and was also spending from its own pocket. He further states that when government found that its efforts were insufficient, the policy at Exh.97 was framed and according to said policy all persons below the poverty line who constructed houses on government land by spending money from their own pocket have been protected. Advocate Shri De, states that direction is to withdraw all proceedings for removal of their encroachment. According to Advocate Shri De, the benefit of the said policy decision which is taken in public interest has been rightly extended by Civil Court to appellant / plaintiff and lower appellate court has by taking too technical view of the matter denied that benefit. He further points out that the revenue authorities did not consider said policy decision and therefore, their orders are to be declared as illegal. According to him, Gram Panchayat itself leased out the property for one year to the present appellant and after one year said lease was never terminated and appellant continued validly in possession of the leased out property. He states that the appellant was also permitted to construct on the suit plot.