Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gram Panchayat vs Natha Singh And Others on 2 November, 2011
Civil Revision No. 3443 of 2010
--1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA,
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 3443 of 2010
Date of decision. 02.11.2011
Gram Panchayat .... Petitioner
Versus
Natha Singh and others ...... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr.Arihant Jain,Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Mahesh Gupta, Advocate
for the respondents.
****
Vijender Singh Malik, J.
Gram Panchayat, village Dohla has questioned by way of this revision petition, brought under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the legality of the order dated 07.01.2010 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned District Judge, Sangrur, vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 03.01.2007 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhuri has been dismissed.
To begin with, the respondents Natha Singh and others filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the petitioner directing it to remove Hadda-Rori(place to store the carcasses of dead animals) to some other place because the same was situated near residential houses Civil Revision No. 3443 of 2010
--2--
of the plaintiffs and other inhabitants of the village and on account of the foul smell emitted therefrom, it was difficult for the plaintiff and other inhabitants to reside there. The said suit ended in judgment and decree dated 12.10.2004(Annexure P-1) whereby learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhuri had decreed the suit directing the defendant-petitioner to shift the Hadda-Rori to some other place, which is 450 yards away from the residential houses of the area of the village.
The said judgment and decree were allowed to become final by the defendant. When no action in compliance with the directions of the aforesaid judgment and decree was taken by the defendant, Natha Singh and others brought an application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC for directing the petitioner to comply with the judgment and decree in question. They had prayed for sending the judgment debtor in civil prison in case it failed to do so for violating the terms of the judgment and decree.
On notice of the application, the same was opposed by the Gram Panchayat. The main plank of the defence of the Gram Panchayat has been that the Gram Panchayat had no land of its own where Hadda Rori could be shifted and that the Administrator controlling the Gram Panchayats made a number of efforts to arrange property for shifting the Hadda Rori but no one was ready to give his property for that purpose. The Gram Panchayat even claimed to compensate the plaintiffs/decree holders if they were ready to give some agricultural land for the purpose of shifting the Hadda Rori.
Civil Revision No. 3443 of 2010
--3--
Learned executing court framed issues on the pleadings of the parties and took evidence thereon and on hearing learned counsel for the parties, it was found that there was merit in the application filed under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC. The Gram Panchayat was granted a period of six months to comply with the judgment and decree and to shift the Hadda Rori in terms of the same. It had also observed that in case the said directions were not complied with, the Sarpanch or the Administrator will be sent to civil imprisonment.
The Gram Panchayat has challenged the order dated 03.01.2007 before learned District Judge, Sangrur, who has dismissed the appeal primarily for the reason that the appeal does not lie under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC as also for the reason that it is liable to fail on merits.
Now against the order of learned District Judge, Sangrur, this revision petition has brought by the Gram Panchayat.
I have heard Shri Arihant Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mahesh Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents and have gone through the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Gram Panchayat does not own any land over which the Hadda Rori could be shifted in compliance with the terms of the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2004. According to him, on the last date of hearing, the respondents had been directed to point out any land owned by Gram Panchayat where in compliance with the terms of the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2004, the Hadda Rori could be shifted.
Civil Revision No. 3443 of 2010
--4--
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that no such land has been pointed out. He has submitted that proposal to purchase/acquire land for this purpose has been sent in the shape of resolution of Gram Panchayat dated 02.04.2010 to Director Panchayats for approval and that it would be shifted once the gram panchayat is able to acquire land for this purpose.
Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that Shingara Singh, Halqa Patwari, who appeared as PW-6 in the suit brought by Natha Singh and others had himself stated that Gram Panchayat is owner of Khasra No.1071/752(1-14) and khasra no.892/97 (1-9). According to him, this land is sufficient to prove that the Gram Panchayat has alternative piece of land for shifting the Hadda Rori and is definitely not complying with the terms of the judgment and decree in question.
In reply to the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that these two properties are passages where the Hadda Rori could not be shifted. He has also brought to the notice of the court a copy of khasra girdawari in this regard showing the said properties to be passages.
A perusal of the record shows that the Gram Panchayat is in no mood to comply with the terms of the judgment and decree in question. The judgment and decree under execution were passed on 12.10.2004 and till date, the Gram Panchayat has not made arrangement Civil Revision No. 3443 of 2010
--5--
of an alternate site for the Hadda Rori. Had the Gram Panchayat intended to acquire some land for the purpose, the intervening period was more than sufficient for that purpose.
Against the order passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhuri on 03.01.2007, an appeal was filed before learned District Judge, Sangrur, which did not lie as per the provisions of Order 43 Rule 1 CPC. Thereafter, this revision petition has been filed.
If the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that a resolution dated 02.04.2010 has been passed by the Gram Panchayat seeking permission of Director Panchayats to acquire land for the purpose, is to be accepted, learned counsel for the petitioner has even failed to tell as to what is the progress made in the matter in the office of Director Panchayats. The resolution is more than 1-1/2 years old and if pursued in right earnest, some decision on the same would have been taken by the Director Panchayats. It is, therefore, shown that the Gram Panchayat is not honestly pursuing the matter and does not seem to be in a mood to comply with the terms of the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2004.
For these reasons, I find no merit in the revision petition. However, the Gram Panchayat is not an individual and the Sarpanch of the same has changed in the year 2008 and, therefore, before taking any punitive steps against the Sarpanch of sending him to civil imprisonment, some more time is required to be given to him to pursue Civil Revision No. 3443 of 2010
--6--
the matter and to get land acquired immediately to shift the Hadda Rori. Therefore, while dismissing the revision petition, I grant six months' time to the Gram Panchayat to comply with the terms of the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2004.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 02.11.2011 dinesh