GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR PANCHAYATS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the arguments in the stay application and the appeal would be the same and the prayer is only to vacate the interim stay order, we have taken up the letters patent appeal itself for final disposal.

(2.) We are unable to understand the attitude of the appellant-Gram Panchayat in this matter. It may be that the respondents were in unlawful possession. Even assuming so, that cannot give a right to the appellant to take possession of the land without recourse to law. The appellant's attempts in this behalf on many occasions have failed. When ultimately the Gram Panchayat took proceedings for eviction the respondents filed C.W.P. No. 11093 of 1988 in which interim stay of dispossession was made pending disposal of the writ petition which was later confirmed by an order dated February 14, 1989. While confirming the order the learned Judge said that the order is confirmed subject to the furnishing of security for mesne profits by the writ-petitioners to the satisfaction of Collector, Samana, within two months which shall be accepted after notice to the respondents to that writ petition. It is a case of the respondents herein that they did attempt to give security to the S.D.O. (C) Samana, whom they considered as the Collector, Samana, but the security was not accepted on the ground that he is not the proper officer. While this was going on, two months' period was over and instead of reporting the matter to the Court that the security had not been furnished and requesting the Court to vacate the stay granted, the appellant assumed the jurisdiction and right to dispossess the writ -petitioners and disposed them and purported to lease out the same to a third party. When that matter was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge again, he confirmed the original order after pointing out that the order could not be construed as having been vacated and ordered the status quo with reference to possession as on February 14, 1989 to be maintained. It is against this order that the letters patent appeal has been filed.

(3.) The bench while admitting the appeal had stayed the operation of the order of the learned Single Judge dated February 14, 1989. We are at a loss to understand how the Gram Panchayat could say that merely because the security was tendered to a wrong officer, the order of dispossession stood vacated. The Panchayat being a public body should have approached the Court that the direction of the Court had not been complied with and, therefore, the order should be vacated. The order does not state that if the security is not furnished within the stipulated period, the stay shall stand vacated, nor does it state that the stay shall come into operation only after the security is furnished. The stay made by the Court on February 14, 1989, operated instantly and, therefore, that order could only be altered or varied by another order of the Court. Taking possession and leasing out to a third party, therefore, was not legal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed which would mean that the original stay of dispossession granted on February 14, 1989, will stand. Acceptance of the security furnished by the respondents by the S.D.O. (C), Samana, will be treated as valid and due compliance of the order dated February 14, 1989. Order accordingly.