LAWS(P&H)-1994-5-138

AMARJIT SINGH Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT NAULAKHA

Decided On May 05, 1994
AMARJIT SINGH Appellant
V/S
GRAM PANCHAYAT NAULAKHA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in this petition filed by Amarjit Singh and others is to quash order dated 24th October, 1991 passed by the Addl. director Panchayat, Punjab (Annexure 14) by which the appeal of the Gram Panchayat was allowed and it was held that the Panchayat was owner of the land in suit. In consequence of the order aforesaid, the petitioners were ordered to be dispossessed from the suit land.

(2.) Culled from the impugned order, as also the pleadings of the parties, briefly, the facts of the case reveal that Gopal Singh predecessor-in-interest of petitioners No. 1 to 3, who also happens to the brother of petitioner No. 4 filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was owner of the land described in the head note of the plaint. Inter alia, it was pleaded by him that he was in continuous possession of the land in dispute since 1934 and his possession was adverse, open, hostile and without interruption and as of right. It is, thus, by and large on the basis of the adverse possession that he claimed title to the property in dispute. The matter was contested by the Gram panchayat. However, no witness was examined by the Gram Panchayat and it is only on the statement of PW1, i.e. Pritam Singh, who is brother of Gopal Singh and on perusal of the Jamabandi for the year 1973-74 that the suit was decreed by Sub-Judge 1st Class Bassi on 6th August, 1975. It is followed by decree sheet Annexure P2. In the year 1986, the Gram Panchayat filed application under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act of 1961) for change of ownership of the land measuring 32K, the subject-matter of the decree referred to above against successors-in-interest of Gopal Singh and Pritam Singh. The application was contested by the petitioner and vide orders dated 10th September, 1986, the same was dismissed by the collector, Patiala. Aggrieved, the Gram panchayat filed an appeal which came ultimately before the Additional Director of Panchayats exercising the powers of the Commissioner and was allowed vide impugned orders which, as indicated in the earlier part of this order, have been challenged herein. It was observed by the Appellate Authority that as per the Jamabandi for the year 1963-64, 1968-69 and 1973-74, the Gram Panchayat was the owner of the land in dispute. In the jamabandi for the year 1963-64, the possession of the father of gopal Singh was recorded. However, the said possession was on account of his being a tenant (Chakotedar). In accordance with the entries of Jamabandi, it was further observed that he had taken this land on rent @Rs. 20/- per acre and was in possession of 24 Kanals at that time. The same entries were repeated for the jamabandi 1968-69. However, in the jamabandi for the year 1973-74, he was recorded in possession of 32 Kanals but the same was shown to be forcible. It was further observed that the Gram Panchayat was shown as owner of the land in dispute uptill now and the petitioner was in forcible occupation of the same. After so observing, the learned Addl. Director went on to hold that since the decree passed by the Sub Judge was obtained on the statement made by the representative of the Gram Panchayat through Sarpanch who had no valid resolution to defend the cause of the Gram Panchayat, the said decree could not be binding on the Gram Panchayat.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contends that the view taken by the Addl. Director as expressed above while ignoring the Civil Court decree that came into being prior to introduction of Section 13-B of the Act which was introduced by the Punjab Act of 1976 could not be ignored in the manner it had been done and the only mode of challenging the said decree and getting it set aside the decree on the basis of collusion, fraud and other known methods of setting aside the decree. For his aforesaid contention learned counsel relies upon a decision rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in Gram Panchayat Batholi Kalan v. Jagar Ram, 1991 1 RRR 368(P&H) .