RAGHBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CIVIL Writ Petition Nos. 2123 and 2124 of 1972, which have been filed under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, are being disposed of by this judgment. The questions of law and fact raised in these two petitions are almost the same and can be conveniently dealt with together.

(2.) THE petitioners in each case were, at the relevant time, the members of the gram Panchayat of village Pehowa, tahsil Guhla in Karnal district; Ragbir Singh petitioner No. 1 being the Sarpanch. The land mentioned in paragraph 1 of the petition in each case had vested in the Gram Panchayat under the Punjab Village common Lands (Regulation) Act of 1953 (Punjab Act No. 1 of 1954) which was repealed by and then at the same time re-enacted as an Act of the same name in 1961 (Punjab Act No. 18 of 1961 ). These lands had been leased out in 1950-51 by the Collector under the East Punjab Utilisation of Lands Act, 1949, for a period of twenty years. The land described in Civil Writ No. 2124 of 1972 had been leased out to the Karnal Co-operative Farmers Society Limited while the lessees of the land in the other case were some private persons. These lessees filed separate civil suits in June, 1971, against the Gram Sabha, Pehowa for a declaration that they had become owners of the land and that the Gram Sabha should be restrained from interfering with their possession. The Gram Panchayat and the sarpanch were shown as the executive body entitled to defend the suits on behalf of the Gram Sabha. Annexure 'a' to the Civil Writ Petition in each case is a copy of the plaint filed in the respective civil suits.

(3.) BOTH these suits were decreed on the admission of the petitioners and they claim that they had been authorised by a resolution (Annexure 'b' dated 28-61971)of the Gram Panchayat to suffer decrees being passed in both these cases. It may, however, appear that the petitioners were the only members present in the meeting in which these resolutions were said to have been passed by the gram Panchayat and three or four other Panchas were not present. The petitioners were also members of the Co-operative society in whose favour the lease of the land which is the subject-matter of the dispute in Civil Writ No. 2124 of 1972 had been granted. The petitioners were, therefore, admitting a claim of the Society of which they themselves were members and they were suffering a decree to be passed in their own favour. The question that had been raised by the lessees in both suits was whether the land in dispute had rightly vested in the Gram panchayat and this would have depended on an interpretation and application to the facts of the case of the complicated definition of the expression, "shamilat deh" as given in Section 2 (g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation)Act of 1961. The expression had not been defined in the earlier Act of the same name passed in 1953/1954. A mutation order about such vesting of the shamilat land in the Gram Panchayat had been attested in 1957 and this mutation offer was being challenged by the lessees after a period of about fourteen years. Section 3 (1) of Punjab Act No. 18 of 1961 revesting in the owners of the lands not coming within the definition of "shamilat deh" had also come into force about ten years earlier. If the Gram Panchayat was actually conceding that there was no proper vesting of the land in their favour then they were making themselves functus officio to admit as panchas any claim to land not vesting in them. There is, therefore, a good deal to be said in support of the respondents plea that the resolution passed by the petitioners as members of Gram Panchayat and the decree that they suffered in their own favour were collusive in nature. This decree would have ensured for the benefit of the petitioners in the suit filed by the Cooperative society of which petitioners were members along with some others. Apart from the merits of the plaintiffs' case in the two civil suits, the petitioners, had acted in utter disregard of the provisions of Section 67 (1) of the Punjab Gram panchayat Act, 1952 (Punjab Act No. IV of 1953) which debar any member of a panchayat from taking part in any judicial proceeding in which he or his employer or employee or partner or relative is a party or in which any such Panch is personally interested. By authorising one of themselves to admit judgment in these case, the petitioners had gained a personal advantage at the expense of the public whose interests they were supposed to protect in their position of trust and responsibility as members of the Panchayat.