JAI SINGH PYARA SINGH Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT SINGHANWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JAI Singh instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the Gram Panchayat Singhanwala defendant No. 1 and the Gram Panchayat Nasipur defendant No. 2 from demolishing the wall A. B. Shown red in the plan attached to the plaint and also from recovering Rs. 525 as penalty in execution of their notices and orders. According to the plaintiff's case house No. 24 situated in village Laharsa was allotted to him 11 years ago and he is in possession thereof ever since; one on report by one Phami Shah the Gram Panchayat of the village Singhanwal issued a notice under S. 21 of the Gram Panchayat Act (hereinafter called the Act) but on the plaintiff approaching the competent authority the case was transferred to the Gram Panchayat of village Nasirpur defendant No. 2 which Panchayat by its order dated 30-12-1958 directed the wall A. B. of the plaintiffs compound to be removed within a week with a further direction that the plaintiff pays Rs. 25 as the fine and failing compliance to pay a further fine of Re. 1 per day to the extent of Rs. 500.

(2.) THE plaintiff preferred a revision against this order in the Court of Shri Nand Kishor, Revenue Assistant Ambala who after hearing the parities suspended the resolution and held that the wall had existed from the time of the Muslims and that the panchayat had no right to include that part of the house in the public street. The plaintiff on 11-12-1959 received a notice from the Panchayat defendant No. 1 to the effect that the Director Gram Panchayat has dismissed the plaintiff's revision and the plaintiff was to pay Rs. 525 being the amount of fine within one week, failing which the Collector would be moved for realising the amount of fine within one week failing which the Collector would be moved for realising the amount. This notice by defendant No. 1 and the order of defendant No. 2 were described in the suit to be mala fide perverse ultra vires and void and also that the wall. A. B. was never constructed by him the same having been in existence since the time of the Muslims and it was not situated in the public street. Another plea raised was that defendant No. 1 had no jurisdiction in the matter because the area of village Lahara had been taken out of its jurisdiction vide notification, dated 17-7-1959. The order of this Panchayat was illegal on this ground as well. Defendant No. 2 Gram Panchayat of Nasirpur was impleaded as a proper party. (2) In the written statement it was denied that the disputed wall already existed. The plea of the orders of the Gram Panchayat being ultra vires was controverted. The jurisdiction of the civil Court to set aside the order of the Panchayat or which took exception to them was disputed. (2a) On the pleading of the parties then following issues were settled:-1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the site on which the disputed wall A. B. stands? 2. whether the civil Courts have jurisdiction to set aside the order of imposing the fine on the plaintiff?

(3.) WHETHER the order of Gram Panchayat is ultra vires void mala fide the perverse?