GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. SUKHDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gram Panchayat, Balad Kalan, Tehsil and District Sangrur has filed this appeal against the judgments and decrees dated 2.5.2002 and 14.8.2003 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur (hereinafter described as `the trial Court') and Additional District Judge, Sangrur (hereinafter referred to as `the lower Appellate Court'), respectively.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Ajmer Singh and Baghel Singh (both of whom have since died and are represented by their legal representatives who are respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein). It was pleaded that the land in question was owned by the appellant and the defendants were in illegal possession of the same and that order dated 30.3.1983 was passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation in its absence and that a fraud had been played upon it. It was averred that a fictitious file No. 54/83 titled Ajmer Singh etc. v. Nagar Panchayat, Balad Kalan was created upon which the aforementioned order was passed. The appellant was never served and the file was never put up before the Additional Director, Consolidation. It was further averred that an application was filed before the Additional Director, Consolidation on 3.5.1994 bringing to his notice the aforementioned fraud and one Gurinder Singh, Ahlmad had reported on 2.5.1994 that the above said file was never entered and he had not consigned the file to the record room. The appellant had contended that the defendants had concealed all these proceedings and had kept it in dark. It was averred that had the appellant been served, it would have brought to the notice of the Additional Director, Consolidation the fact that two applications filed under Section 42 of the East Punjab Consolidation of Holdings (Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for shot, `the 1948 Act') had been dismissed on 25.11.1971 and 21.9.1972. It was also averred that the appellant had filed application No. 126 of 1994 before the Additional Director, Consolidation, Mohali, but the same was dismissed on 28.3.1995.

(3.) The defendants had contested the suit to say that there was no infirmity in order dated 30.3.1983. The fraud, as alleged by the appellant, was denied. The mutation had already been entered and an appeal against the mutation was dismissed on 24.10.1994 and possession had been delivered to the defendants by the officials of the Consolidation Department and it was pleaded that the full opportunity was given to the appellant before passing of order dated 30.3.1983 and that Joginder Singh, Sarpanch had attended the Court of Additional Director, Consolidation and had filed a writ petition in the High Court as well which was dismissed on 3.6.1992. The Petition for Special Leave to Appeal against the judgment of the High Court was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 4.1.1995 and revision petition No. 126 of 1994 was dismissed on 28.3.1995. It was pleaded that the suit is frivolous and even the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the same in view of the provisions of Section 11 and 13 of the Punjab Village Common Land Act, 1961 (for short, `the 1961 Act').