GRAM PANCHAYAT BANSWADA Vs. YASHODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SRI Serla Pandari, learned Counsel representing the review petitioner in Rev. S. A. M. P. No. 2606 of 2008 in S. A. No. 484 of 1991 had taken this Court through the grounds raised in the review petition and would maintain that it was not brought to the notice of this Court that in a suit of this nature, the relief of declaration prayed for and the consequential relief for perpetual injunction, which had been prayed for, cannot be granted. The learned Counsel, incidentally, had drawn attention of this Court to Sections 6 and 7 of Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act' in short for the purpose of convenience) and would maintain that even on facts the civil Court could not have entertained the suit of this nature and that in the light of the facts and circumstances, which had been explained in detail this being an error apparent on the face of record, the present review petition is perfectly maintainable. Incidentally, the learned Counsel also had drawn attention of this Court to the relevant findings recorded by the learned Judge of this Court while allowing Second Appeal Nos. 484 and 485 of 1991 by common order.

(2.) THE learned Government Pleader for Arbitration representing the review petitioners in Rev. S. A. M. P. No. 2972 of 2008 in S. A. No. 485 of 1991, while making submissions, pointed out that in the light of Section 14 of the Act, the very entertainment of the suit by the civil Court is illegal. This being an error apparent on the face of record, such judgment can be reviewed. Further, the learned Counsel also pointed out to the relevant findings recorded by the learned Judge while allowing the second appeals and ultimately would submit that in the light of the facts and circumstances, the Review S. A. M. Ps to be allowed and the second appeals to be dismissed.

(3.) HEARD the learned Counsel on record and perused the material.