SAT NARAIN Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT BRAH KALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 6.3.2013 passed by Additional District Judge, Jind seeking restoration of appeal filed by respondent No. 1 Gram Panchayat before the appellate court. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the order. He submits that after the appeal was withdrawn on a statement made by a duly authorised representative, no application for restoration was maintainable. The appellate court has erroneously directed restoration of the appeal.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and given careful thought to the facts of the case.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid decree, Gram Panchayat preferred appeal before Additional District Judge, Jind. On 1.12.2010 a Panch, namely Siri Dutt appeared before the appellate court and stated that no decree of recovery had been passed against Gram Panchayat and it having initiated proceedings under section 7 of the Village Common Lands Act, would take possession in due course of law. The appeal may, thus, be dismissed as withdrawn. This plea was accepted by the lower appellate court and appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. It is evident that by virtue of decree, respondents were restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the land claimed to be Jumla Mustarka Malkan Hasab Rasad Raqba Khewat. They had pleaded that mutation in favour of Gram Panchayat had been entered wrongly. Thus, the decree had far reaching effects on the rights of the State and the Gram Panchayat. As soon as the decree came to the knowledge of the Gram Panchayat, it moved instant application alleging that Panch Siri Dutt, who was only authorised to pursue or do Pairvi of the matter, had colluded with the petitioners and withdrew the appeal. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered view that lower appellate court has rightly accepted the application of the Gram Panchayat and directed restoration of the appeal. Prima facie it appears that Panch Siri Dutt acted against the interest of the State and the Gram Panchayat and has, thus, committed an illegal act. It is left to the Gram Panchayat to lodge a complaint in this regard if deems fit. This revision petition is, however, dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/ -.