GRAM PANCHAYAT SABHA DEVIDASSPURA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff respondent No. 3 filed a suit in the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Karnal, on August 29, 1968, seeking a declaration that it was the owner in possession of the suit property and the defendant Panchayat be restrained from interfering in its peaceful possession and management of the temple. The Panchayat claimed it to have vested in it. The suit was dismissed by the trial Sub Judge on December 21, 1973. While an appeal was pending against this decree before the District Judge, the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 , as applicable to the State of Haryana, was amended by Act No. 34 of 1974, taking away the jurisdiction of the civil Court in matters qua the properties which vested or were deemed to have vested in the village Panchayat under the above noted Act. In view of this amendment in law, the District Judge setting aside the decree of the trial Court transferred the suit to the Court of Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Thanesar, for trial. The Assistant Collector disposed of the suit on merits without recording any evidence and on the issue which had been tried by the civil Court. It was so done in view of the concession of the learned counsel for the parties that they did not want to lead any more evidence in support of their respective stands in addition to all that was already on record. The Assistant Collector dismissed the suit vide judgment dated March 31, 1978 (Annexure P. 2). On appeal by the plaintiff-respondent, the suit has been decreed by the Additional Collector, Kurukshetra, through judgment dated September 29, 1978, which it is difficult to discern properly. The Additional Collector has hardly adverted to any piece of evidence, i.e., the statements of witnesses or the documents produced by the parties in support of their respective cases - the learned counsel for the parties agree that in this case more than 30 documents have been produced on record and more then 12 witnesses have been examined - before concluding that the Panchayat has no concern with the land in question. As has been pointed out above, it is rather difficult to appreciate the process of reasoning or the conclusions recorded by the appellate Court. The whole matter has been dealt with in a slipshod manner. Similarly the judgment of the trial Court though may be said to be a little better than that of the Additional Collector, yet suffers from similar defects. It appears that neither of the two Courts has correctly appreciated the controversy or the issues to be tried by them. A judgment to be legal has to contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision. A mere colourable presence of considering the evidence without really having done so, cannot result in a sustainable judgment or at least one which can be said to be proper. As has been pointed out above, the trial Court never thought it proper to reframe the issues on receipt of the records from the civil Court and has unnecessarily tried to assume jurisdiction with regard to matters which precisely and concisely fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the civil Courts.

(2.) In the light of all this I find it difficult to sustain either of the above-noted judgments. The same are thus set aside and the case is sent back to the trial Court, i.e., the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Kurukshetra, for retrial. He would reframe the issues in the light of the pleadings of the parties keeping in view the scope of his own jurisdiction and then after affording them a proper opportunity of leading evidence in support of their respective stands, decide the same on merits in accordance with law. Thus the decree passed against the petitioners is set aside in the light of the observations above. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Assistant Collector on September 1, 1986.