SAT PAL Vs. SARDAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order of the learned District Judge confirming the ad-interim injunction granted by the trial Court.

(2.) Sardar Singh respondent filed a suit for a declaration that he was granted lease of the three ponds in the village for fishing for an amount of Rs.1710/- per year. He further averred that he had learnt that Panchayat was re-auctioning the right of fishing in the said ponds and so he prayed for the grant of permanent injunction restraining the Panchayat from doing so. Along with the suit, he filed an application for an ad-interim injunction to the same effect, which was allowed by the trial Court and its order was affirmed on appeal. The lower appellate Court has proceeded on the ground that the right to catch fish having been once granted, could not be revoked by the Sub-Divisional Officer without hearing the plaintiff. This reasoning proceeded on the assumption that a valid lease had come into being in favour of the plaintiff by the auction held the Panchayat. This assumption, however, is not correct. According to the provisions of Rule 8(3) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation)Rules, 1964, the auction held by the Panchayat is not final till it is approved by the Director of Panchayats. The bid of the plaintiff though was accepted by the Panchayat, was never approved by the Director of Panchayats. No right, therefore, accrued in favour of the plaintiff simply because he was the highest bidder and that his bid had been accepted by the Panchayat and a resolution was recorded by it in his favour. When the matter was brought to the notice of the Sub-Divisional Officer, he directed the Panchayat to re-auction the contract as another person offered to give a bid of Rs.5000/- per year which showed that the bid of the plaintiff must have been accepted by collusion. No prima facie case thus having been established, the Courts below acted illegally in the exercise of their jurisdiction in granting the ad-interim injunction on a wrong assumption that by the acceptance of the bid by the Panchayat, a right had accrued in favour of the plaintiff. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. No costs.