NATHU Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT OF VILLAGE SARSOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition of Nathu for issuance of a writ of certiorari under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution is directed against the order passed by the Collector, Hissar, on 29th August, 1964, and affirmed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, on 23rd March, 1965.

(2.) An application was filed by the Gram Panchayat of Sarsod against the petitioner under sections 4, 5 and 7 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1959 (hereinafter called the Act) in respect of house Nos. 229/231 and 232. According to the Gram Panchayat, the petitioner had made wrongful constructions on the site belonging to it. It transpired in the course of arguments before me that the Gram Panchayat had based its title on the sale certificate in respect of the site which it had purchased from the Custodian. After evidence had been adduced by the parties, the application for ejectment was fixed for arguments for 14th of January, 1964. There is an order of the Collector of that date that counsel for both the parties were present and arguments had been heard in part. On the next date, which was 16th of January, 1964 no one was present for the Gram Panchayat while Nathu was present himself and was also represented by his counsel. The petition was dismissed in default of the presence of the Gram Panchayat.

(3.) It is the allegation of Nathu in this petition that the Gram Panchayat deliberately absented itself because some sort of lacuna had remained in the evidence which it had not been able to fill and an adverse decision, after the arguments, was a foregone conclusion. Be that as it may, the Gram Panchayat without making any attempt for restoration of the petition dismissed in default moved another application on 23rd of April, 1964, and it is common ground that both in substance and the relief sought for the second application is the same as the first one. In reply to the second application, Nathu raised an objection regarding its maintainability. The Court considering that the first application had been dismissed in default and there being no provision in the Act for its restoration took the view that the second application could be maintained on the same cause of action. This order of the Collector of 29th August, 1964, has been affirmed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division in an appeal preferred before him by Nathu in the order passed by him on 23rd of March, 1965. The validity of the two orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner are challenged in this writ petition.