GRAM SABHA SALINA Vs. NAHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With a bit of ingenuity it is not difficult to find a problem for every solution. This is what is sought to be created in the present Writ Petition filed by Gram Sabha Salina, District Faridkot, through its Sarpanch, against Nahar Singh and others impugning the order, dated September 23, 1975, passed by the Commissioner Ferozepore Division, Ferozepore, in an appeal under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 .

(2.) The undisputed facts first, though briefly resumed. The petitioner-Gram-Panchayat filed an application before the Assistant Collector First Grade, Moga, under section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the ejectment of Nahar Singh and two others (respondents 1 to 3) from the land in question measuring 836 Kanals and 4 Marlas on the ground that though the land was meant for grazing ground for the cattle, the said respondents had illegally occupied part of this shamilat land and were not permitting the right-holders to use the same. The prayer was that the respondents be ordered to be ejected from the land. In reply to this application, the claim of the Panchayat was resisted by the respondents on several grounds, inter alia, that the land was not shamilat deh as defined under Section 2 of the Act, but on the other hand it was owned by specific right-holders in well-defined shares. The competence of the application was also disputed on the ground that there was no resolution authorising the Gram Panchayat to file the application. On merits, though the details do not find mention in the reply filed by the respondents before the Assistant Collector, some elucidation is forthcoming in the appeal which was filed before the Collector against the decision of the Assistant Collector. The case of the respondents as set out there is that the land in dispute is recorded as being owned by Shrimati Suraj Kaur and other proprietors of Patti Sareen and the share of Shrimati Suraj Kaur is recorded as two-third. She made a gift of her property my means of a registered gift-deed, dated March 13, 1971 for being used for the welfare of the people. A trust called the Human Welfare Trust under the presidentship of respondent No. 1 was created for establishing certain institutions like a Ground Engineering and Gliding Course Training Centre, Hospital, Dairy Farm and Sports Stadium etc. Therefore, a runway and some other buildings had already been constructed at a heavy cost without any objection from the other proprietors of the village. The Assistant Collector recorded evidence of the parties and even though he noticed the admission of the Sarpanch of the petitioner-Panchayat that the mutation in respect of the land had not been sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat, he came to a finding that the land was shamilah deh as defined under section 2(g)(3) of the Act. Against the decision of the Assistant Collector, the three respondents filed an appeal before the Collector, Faridkot, but they failed to convince the said Authority. A second appeal under section 7(4) of the Act was then carried to the Commissioner against the appellate order of the Collector and it is here that the respondents met with success. The present Writ Petition seeks to impugn the said order of the Commissioner, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure P/10 to the Writ Petition.

(3.) The points which have been urged may be noticed seriatim. The first contention is that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner is vitiated on account of the fact that respondent No. 1 while filing the appeal had not impleaded respondents 2 to 3 as respondents and in this situation no relief could have been granted to respondent No. 1 by the Commissioner. The argument is beyond comprehension. The ground on which the three respondents were called upon to vacate the land in question is that they had trespassed into that land. The three respondents indeed filed the appeal jointly before the Collector but at the stage of the second appeal, it is only respondent No. 1 who sought to continue the battle. The allegation, referred to above, does not connote a joint interest in the cause of action to the extent that all the respondents were bound to contest the verdict of the Collector. If respondent No. 1 is able to effectively defend the allegation in so far as it concerns him, he is not obliged to implead the other respondents in the appeal when no relief is claimed by him against them. The other two respondents cannot be said to be necessary parties in the matter and their non-impleading does not confer any benefit to the petitioner-Panchayat who is the only contesting respondent in the case. Furthermore, it has been rightly brought to my notice that this objection does not find place in the Writ Petition itself and on that ground also the same cannot be allowed to be agitated at the arguments stage.