Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gram Panchayat Village Malot vs Ram Sarup And Others on 3 July, 2014
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(1) RSA No. 1640 of 2001 ( O&M )
Gram Panchayat Village Malot
.... APPELLANT
Versus
Ram Sarup and others
..... RESPONDENTS
(2) RSA No. 1641 of 2001
Gram Panchayat Village Malot
.... APPELLANT
Versus
Karam Singh
..... RESPONDENT
(3) RSA No. 1642 of 2001
Gram Panchayat Village Malot
.... APPELLANT
Versus
Watna Ram
..... RESPONDENT
DATE OF DECISION : 03.07.2014
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. S.S. Behl, Advocate,
for the respondents.
***
Dass Narotam
2014.07.09 14:53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
RSA Nos. 1640, 1641 and 1642 of 2001 -2-
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) This judgment shall dispose of Regular Second Appeal Nos. 1640, 1641 and 1642 of 2001, in which common questions of fact and law are involved. All these appeals have been filed by Gram Panchayat of village Malot, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur, against the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below, whereby three separate suits filed by the appellant have been dismissed.
The appellant filed suit seeking declaration to the effect that the order dated 9.1.1996 passed by the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, is illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the appellant. Vide the said order, the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, in exercise of the powers under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as `the Consolidation Act') had ordered re- partition of the land in question on the application filed by the proprietors of the village. Undisputedly, in the revenue record, i.e. jamabandi for the year 1988-89, the suit land was recorded as Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat in the column of ownership and Maqbuja Malkan in the column of possession. On the basis of the said entry, the land was mutated in the ownership of the Gram Panchayat.
Subsequently, on an application filed by the proprietors of the village, Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, ordered re- Dass Narotam 2014.07.09 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos. 1640, 1641 and 1642 of 2001 -3- partition of the said land amongst the proprietors, while coming to the conclusion that the land in dispute does not vest in the Gram Panchayat and it belongs to the proprietors. It was pleaded by the Gram Panchayat that the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, has no jurisdiction under Section 42 of the Consolidation to re-partition the said land and if the proprietors have any right or interest in the said land, they have remedy to file suit under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 to establish their right and interest in the said land.
The defendants-respondents contested the suit on various grounds, including the ground that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant is not maintainable.
The trial court, though did not record any finding with regard to validity of the order dated 9.1.1996 passed by the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, but dismissed the suit on the ground that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the suit is not maintainable.
Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the Gram Panchayat filed appeal, which was also dismissed on the ground that the civil court was having no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of Section 44 of the Consolidation Act and the suit was not maintainable.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through Dass Narotam 2014.07.09 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos. 1640, 1641 and 1642 of 2001 -4- the impugned judgments and decree passed by both the courts below.
Learned counsel for the appellant, while referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gram Panchayat Nurpur v. State of Punjab, 1997 (3) RCR (Civil) 47 and the Full Bench decision of this Court in Parkash Singh and others v. Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab and others, 2014 (2) RCR (Civil) 721, argued that under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act, the Director Consolidation has no jurisdiction to decide the issue as to whether a particular land is Shamilat Deh or not, and whether the same vests in the Gram Panchayat or not. It has been held in the aforesaid judgments that any order passed by the Director Consolidation, partitioning the land is wholly without jurisdiction and illegal and void.
Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to controvert the aforesaid legal position and the fact that the order dated 9.1.1996 passed by the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, ordering the partition of the land is an order without jurisdiction. However, he submits that if the Director Consolidation is held to have no jurisdiction to entertain the said dispute, then the remedy available to the defendants-proprietors is to approach the competent authority under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 by raising the point that the disputed land vests in the proprietors and not in the Gram Panchayat. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondents prays that liberty Dass Narotam 2014.07.09 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos. 1640, 1641 and 1642 of 2001 -5- be granted to the respondents-defendants to raise such issue by filing a suit under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. This prayer made by learned counsel for the respondents is reasonable and it has also not been opposed by learned counsel for the appellant.
In view of the consensus arrived at between both the parties, the order dated 9.1.1996 passed by the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab is held to be illegal and void. To that extent, all the three suits filed by the appellant-plaintiff are decreed, with liberty to the respondents-defendants to file appropriate proceedings/suits before the competent authority under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 to establish their right on the suit land. While filing such suits, it will be open for the respondents to move an application for stay with regard to possession of the suit land and if any such application is filed, the appropriate authority will decide such application in accordance with law. If any such suit is filed within a period of two months, the same will be considered on merits and shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly, in the aforesaid terms.
July 03, 2014 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
ndj JUDGE
Dass Narotam
2014.07.09 14:53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document