SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. LADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present second appeal has been filed by the appellant -defendant under Sec. 100 of CPC, challenging the judgment & decree dt. 21.03.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Malpura, Tonk (hereinafter referred to as "the appellate Court") in Civil Regular Appeal No. 6/06, whereby the appellate Court has allowed the said appeal and set -aside the judgment & decree dt. 13.04.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) Todaraisingh, Tonk (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") in Civil Suit No. 3/2001. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the original -plaintiff Ladu, the predecessor of the respondents had filed the suit against the appellant -defendant seeking permanent injunction for restraining the defendant from dispossessing him and from demolishing the wall existing on the suit land, alleging interdict that the suit land was allotted to him by the Gram Panchayat by issuing lease deed in his favour on 30.05.1980, and since then he was in possession over the disputed land. According to the plaintiff, the defendant was threatening to dispossess him and demolish his wall existing on the suit property, and therefore the suit was filed. The said suit was resisted by the appellant -defendant by filing the written statement, contending inter alia that the plaintiff had encroached upon the land in question, and he was never allotted the suit land, as it was sawai chak land belonging to the State Government. It appears that during the pendency of the suit, the original -plaintiff Ladu had expired, and therefore his legal heirs were brought on record. The trial Court after framing the issue and recording the evidence, dismissed the suit of the respondents vide the judgment & decree dt. 13.04.2006, against which the respondents had preferred the appeal before the appellate Court. The appellate Court allowed the said appeal restraining the appellant from dispossessing the respondents or causing any obstruction to the respondents from using the land in question. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Lokesh Sharma for the appellant that the land in question is sawai chak land belonging to the State Government and therefore could not have been allotted to the respondents. He also submitted that the suit was filed by the respondents -plaintiffs without serving notice under Sec. 109 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act 1994, and therefore the judgment & decree passed by the appellate Court deserves to be set -aside. However, the learned counsel Mr. Resham Bhargava for the respondents supporting the judgment & decree passed by the appellate Court, submitted that the respondents being in possession of the land in question on the basis of the lease deed issued by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the original -plaintiff Ladu, they cannot be dispossessed without following due process of law. Having regard to the submissions, and to the impugned judgment & decree passed by the appellate Court, it appears that the appellant -defendant had not taken any action or followed any procedure for dispossessing the respondents, who were admittedly in possession on the disputed land. Since long as rightly observed by the appellate Court, the appellant Gram Panchayat had not taken any action for cancelling the patta or dispossess the respondents, if they had encroached upon the land in question. It is needless to say that no one who is in lawful possession can be dispossessed from the land in question without following the due process of law. The learned counsel for the appellant having failed to point out any question of law much less substantial question of law, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. However, it is clarified that the appellant shall be at liberty to take action against the respondents after following the due process of law in respect of the land in question. With this observation the appeal is dismissed.