Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gram Panchayat Village Atohan vs Hukam And Others on 29 November, 2013
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
CR No.1235 of 2012 (O & M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No.1235 of 2012 (O & M)
Date of Decision:29.11.2013
Gram Panchayat Village Atohan
....Petitioner
Versus
Hukam and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
1) Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Ms. Monisha Lamba, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. R.S.Hooda, Advocate,
for respondents no.1 to 5.
Mr. Deepak Girotra, AAG, Haryana.
****
PARAMJEET SINGH, J. (Oral)
CM No.13487-CII of 2012 This is an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short "CPC") for treating the instant revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India instead under Section 115 CPC.
It is contended that earlier revision petition was withdrawn Kumar Parveen 2013.12.05 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh09 CR No.1235 of 2012 (O & M) 2 to file afresh under relevant provisions of law. However, inadvertently, the petitioner-Gram Panchayat passed resolution to file revision under Section 115 of CPC because of which wrong provision came to be mentioned in the revision.
For the reasons recorded in the application and the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant, the application is allowed. The revision is treated to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
CM No.5167-CII of 2012 Since the revision has been treated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision has become infructuous.
Dismissed of accordingly.
CR No.1235 of 2012 Instant civil revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 14.10.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Palwal whereby appeal preferred against the order dated 06.09.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Palwal dismissing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, has been disposed of with the direction that amount of compensation withdrawn by the Gram Panchayat would not be spent by the Gram Panchayat till decision of the suit, however, the Gram Panchayat may deposit the same in a fixed deposit in any nationalized bank so that the party found entitled to receive the same after decision of the suit does not suffer loss of interest. Kumar Parveen 2013.12.05 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh09 CR No.1235 of 2012 (O & M) 3
Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are to the effect that the plaintiffs have claimed that they are inhabitants and proprietors of village Atohan, Tehsil and District Palwal. Their forefathers were owners in possession of the suit land as mentioned in para 1 of plaint situated within the revenue estate of village Atohan. As per jamabandi for the year 1945-46, the suit land was Shamilat Deh. It is further averred in the plaint that the suit land was vested in Gram Panchayat and name of Gram Panchayat was recorded in the revenue record in the column of ownership, however, the actual physical and cultivating possession was not delivered to the Gram Panchayat. As per Notification No.17 dated 01.04.2011, the suit land was acquired by the State of Haryana. The amount of compensation for the acquired land has been deposited in the name of Gram Panchayat whereas the Gram Panchayat is not owner of the suit land and its name has been wrongly recorded in the revenue record. Upon notice, defendant no.3-Gram Panchayat put in appearance and filed written statement denying that either plaintiff or their forefathers were owners in possession of the suit land. The Gram Panchayat has been recorded as owner in possession of the suit land in the revenue record. The trial Court after considering the pleadings and documents available on record dismissed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, vide order dated 06.09.2011. Feeling aggrieved with the said order, respondents no.1 to 5 preferred appeal which has been disposed of vide impugned order dated 14.10.2011 with the aforesaid observation. Hence, this revision petition.
Kumar Parveen2013.12.05 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh09 CR No.1235 of 2012 (O & M) 4
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in jamabandi for the year 2004-05, Gram Panchayat has been recorded as owner and in possession in column nos.4 and 5 respectively.
In pursuance to order dated 11.11.2013 of this Court, Naib Tehsildar has come present in Court along with original record of the jamabandi i.e. parat patwar as well as parat sarkar and photocopy of same jamabandi as has been incorporated in the computerized record of the Revenue Department. All the original record as well as computerized photocopies which have been shown to this Court by Naib Tehsildar clearly indicate that entries in column nos.4 and 5 of jamabandi have been made in favour of Gram Panchayat, however, learned Additional District Judge, Palwal has relied upon jamabandi for the year 2004-05 and observed that Gram Panchayat is shown to be owner of the suit land, but inhabitants of village are recorded in possession of the suit land. This observation of learned Additional District Judge is apparently contrary to the original revenue record i.e. jamabandi for the year 2004-05. It appears that some fake and forged revenue record was produced before learned Additional District Judge, Palwal which has resulted into setting aside the order of the trial Court. In view of this, order passed by learned Additional District Judge is perverse.
In view of settled position of law that order of the trial Court cannot be lightly set aside as long as view of the trial Court is possible, Kumar Parveen 2013.12.05 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh09 CR No.1235 of 2012 (O & M) 5 the Appellate Court should not have interfered in the order of the trial Court as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Mehtab Khan vs. Khushmima Ibrahim 2013 (2) RCR (Civil) 295.
In view of above, the revision is allowed, the impugned order dated 14.10.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Palwal is set aside and order dated 06.09.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Palwal is restored.
(Paramjeet Singh) Judge November 29, 2013 parveen kumar Kumar Parveen 2013.12.05 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh09