Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gram Panchayat Mana Talwandi vs Commissioner, Rural Development And ... on 22 September, 2022
Author: Lisa Gill
Bench: Lisa Gill
CWP-13288-2021(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
218
CWP-13288-2021(O&M)
Date of decision:22.09.2022
Gram Panchayat Mana Talwandi
....Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayat Department And Others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER
*****
Present : Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. K.S Kang, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Umesh Kumar Kanwar, Advocate for Caveator-respondent No.4 and 5.
***** HARSH BUNGER. J.
Petitioner-Gram Panchayat Mana Talwandi has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of order dated 12.03.2021 (Annexure P-11) passed by respondent No.1.
A perusal of the file would show that respondents No.4 and 5 along with one Harbans Kaur daughter of Sh. Joginder Singh filed a petition under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as '1961 Act') seeking declaration that the land 1 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 31-12-2022 09:29:17 ::: CWP-13288-2021(O&M) 2 in question measuring 30 kanals 14 marlas comprised in Khewat No.431, Khatoni Nos.591, 592, Khasra No.34//17/1 (5-0), 25(8-0), 33//11/2 (4-2), 20(4-1) and 34//16(9-11) situated in the revenue estate of Mana Talwandi does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. Said petition under Section 11 of 1961, Act was contested by the Gram Panchayat and from the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-
"1. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain & try the present petition. OPP
2. Whether the petition is maintainable in its present form. OPP
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to declaration prayed for. OPP
4. Whether the petitioners are barred on account of limitation. OPR
5. Relief."
The learned Collector-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner, (Development) Kapurthala (respondent No.3) passed an order dated 10.08.2004 (Annexure P-2) allowing the petition under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and declaring the private respondents as owners of the land in question. The Gram Panchayat challenged the said order dated 10.08.2004 before the Appellate Authority, who, vide its order dated 28.02.2007 (Annexure P-3), set aside the order dated 10.08.2004 and remanded the matter back to the learned Collector, Kapurthala for deciding the same afresh, after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties to lead their evidence on the question of limitation.
Upon remand, the learned Collector vide its order dated 08.01.2018 (Annexure P-4) dismissed the petition under Section 11 filed by the private respondents and declared the Gram Panchayat as the owner of the 2 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 31-12-2022 09:29:18 ::: CWP-13288-2021(O&M) 3 land in question. The said order dated 08.01.2018 was challenged in appeal by the private respondents and the Appellate Authority, vide its order dated 20.09.2019, (Annexure P-9), allowed the appeal of the private respondents and declared them as owners of the land in question.
Aggrieved, Gram Panchayat Mana Talwandi filed a CWP No.3519 of 2020 which came to be allowed by this Court vide order dated 12.02.2020 (Annexure P-10) and the matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority i.e., the Commissioner, to decide the lis again specifically taking into consideration the findings recorded by the Collector in respect of the issue of limitation. While deciding the aforesaid CWP No.3519 of 2020, this Court has recorded the following findings:-
"Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 on caveat has very fairly conceded that the Appellate Authority i.e. Commissioner has not dealt with the findings recorded in favour of the petitioner and against them in respect of issue No.4.
Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and order dated 20.09.2019 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner to decide the lis again specifically taking into consideration the findings recorded by the Collector in respect of the issue of limitation. Parties are directed to appear before the Commissioner-on 18.03.2020."
A perusal of the file would further show that after the remand by this Court, the Appellate Authority i.e., Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab (exercising the powers of Commissioner) decided the appeal vide order dated 12.03.2021 (Annexure P-11) by observing as under:-
3 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 31-12-2022 09:29:18 ::: CWP-13288-2021(O&M) 4 "After perusing the written arguments of both the parties, I have come to the conclusion that the Gram Panchayat has not produced any such evidence, from which it can be proved that cause of action had arisen to the appellants, prior to 14-05-
2001, from which date the limitation had started and even the Gram Panchayat had not clarified that the cause of action has not arisen on 14-05-2001. Hon'ble Superme Court in Appeal No. 10986 of 1996 has taken decision on 23-08-1996 that mutation of the land, does not create title, in the revenue department. Regarding this Hon'ble High Court has also decided one RSA No. 288 of 2010 on 25-01-2011 that the mutation will not confirm the title and mutation is not the document of title. Therefore while agreeing with the arguments raised by the appellants and in compliance of the order dated 12-02-2020, passed by Hon'ble High Court, I decide the issue of limitation in favour of the appellants because the appellants have filed the petition, in the lower court, within limitation. This order is being passed in compliance of the order dated 12- 02-2020, passed by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court." The Gram Panchayat has challenged the above said order dated 12.03.2021 (Annexure P-11) by filing the instant writ petition.
It is the contention of the petitioner that the Appellate Authority has decided the appeal by passing totally non-speaking order and even the directions issued by this Court in CWP No.3519 of 2020, vide order dated 12.02.2020 have not been complied with in its letter and spirit. Counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the matter should be remanded to the Appellate Authority under the Act, 1961 for deciding the case afresh, especially keeping in view the observations made by this Court in order dated 12.02.2020 (Annexure P-10).
On the other hand, learned counsel for the private respondents as well as the learned counsel representing the State of Punjab while seeking 4 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 31-12-2022 09:29:18 ::: CWP-13288-2021(O&M) 5 dismissal of the writ petition have not been able to deny the fact that the impugned order dated 12.03.2021 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Appellate Authority suffers from total non-application of mind and is a non-speaking order.
On going through the impugned order dated 12.03.2021 (Annexure P-11), we feel that the Appellate Authority has failed to discharge the obligation placed on it as an Appellate Court. The impugned order is not only non-speaking and cryptic but the appeal has been decided in an unsatisfactory manner which shows absolute non-application of mind by the Appellate Authority, especially to the directions issued by this High Court in the order dated 12.02.2020 (Annexure P-10). It is well settled that a quasi- judicial authority is bound to pass a well reasoned order. A non-speaking order deprives an affected party of an effective opportunity to represent against the same. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar V. State of U.P. and Others, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1302, held as under:-
" 7. Opportunity to a party interested in the dispute to present his case on questions of law as well as fact, ascertainment of facts from materials before the Tribunal after disclosing the materials to the party against whom it is intended to use them, and adjudication by a reasoned judgment upon a finding of the facts in controversy and application of the law to the facts found, are attributes of even a quasi-judicial determination. It must appear not merely that the authority entrusted with quasi-judicial authority has reached a conclusion on the problem before him : it must appear that he has reached a conclusion which is according to law and just, and for ensuring that end he must record the ultimate mental process leading from the dispute to its solution. Satisfactory
5 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 31-12-2022 09:29:18 ::: CWP-13288-2021(O&M) 6 decision of a disputed claim may be reached only if it be supported by the most cogent reasons that appeal to the authority. Recording of reasons in support of a decision on a disputed claim by a quasi-judicial authority ensures that the decision is reached according to law and is not the result of caprice, whim or fancy or reached on grounds of policy or expediency. A party to the dispute is ordinarily entitled to know the grounds on which the authority has rejected his claim. If the order is subject to appeal, the necessity to record reasons is greater, for without recorded reasons the appellate authority has no material on which it may determine whether the facts were properly ascertained, the relevant law was correctly applied and the decision was just. "
In view of the above, the impugned order dated 12.03.2021 (Annexure P11) is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority i.e. Director Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab (exercising the powers of Commissioner) under 1961, Act, to decide the appeal afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned by passing a well reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the respective parties before the Appellate Authority. The parties shall appear before the Appellant Authority on 14.10.2022.
Before parting with this order, we deem it appropriate to note that in a number of cases coming up before this Court pertaining to both the States of Punjab and Haryana, it is observed that the Appellate Authority under the 1961 Act, hearing appeals against orders passed in proceedings relating to title, does not record its findings on the issues as may be framed by the learned Collector or Assistant Collector 1st Grade, as the case may be.
This leads to unnecessary and avoidable litigation as one or the other party
6 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 31-12-2022 09:29:18 ::: CWP-13288-2021(O&M) 7 invariably raises objection thereto in view of the well settled position that proceedings relating to title under the 1961 Act are akin to proceedings before the Civil Court, wherein on the basis of pleadings of the parties issues have to be framed, evidence led and findings on the issues returned. It is further well settled that in civil appeal proceedings before the First Appellate Court, the said court is expected to return findings on all issues or at least frame points for determination arising out of the appeal and then record finding accordingly.
In this view of the matter, in order to obviate unnecessary litigation, we deem it appropriate to impress upon the authorities under the 1961 Act hearing appeals relating to title of the land that findings be returned on the issues that may be framed in the suit or at least points of determination arising of the appeal be framed and only then the Appellate Authority should proceed to pass a well reasoned or speaking order in accordance with law.
Chief Secretaries to the Governments of Punjab and Haryana to ensure circulation of a copy of this order to the concerned Appellate Authorities in both the respective States.
Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
(LISA GILL) (HARSH BUNGER)
JUDGE JUDGE
22.09.2022
Amandeep
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
7 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 31-12-2022 09:29:18 :::