GRAM PANCHAYAT VILLAGE SALEM SHAH Vs. SADHU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will also dispose of RSA Nos. 1412, 1413 and 1537 of 1986 as the question involved is common in all the cases.

(2.) The suit giving rise to RSA No. 1490/86 was filed by the plaintiffs for a declaration to the effect that he was the lessee and the tenant on the suit land and that the defendant had no right, title or interest in the suit land, and so, could not dispossess or eject him, and, consequently, the order of the Commissioner, Ferozepur dated 12th July, 1982 and that of the Deputy Director-cum-Panchayat Officer dated 7th January, 1981, were illegal and without jurisdiction. The suit was contested by the defendant Gram Panchayat, inter alia, on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction and that the Gram Panchayat was the owner of the suit land and not the Custodian, and, therefore, the latter had no right to lease out the same to the plaintiff and that the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land was wholly illegal and the orders passed by the authority under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act, 1970, were quite valid and legal. The trial Court found that the said orders were null and void and without jurisdiction and the civil court had the jurisdiction to go into the matters as regards the ownership of the Gram Panchayat. It was further found that the Gram Panchayat could not be held to be the owner of the suit land. Consequently, the suit was decreed. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge relying on thejudgment of this Court reported as Gram Sabha v. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, 1973 PunLJ 398, came to the conclusion that the orders passed by the authority under the said Act were illegal and the Gram Panchayat could not be held to be the owner of the suit property. Dissatisfied with the same, the Gram Panchayat has filed Second Appeal in this Court.

(3.) Since the matter was covered by the Supreme Court judgment reported as Gram Panchayat v. Malwinder Singh, 1985 PunLJ 463, the appeals were directed to be set down for hearing early.