Civil Writ Petition No.7372 of 2007 (O&M) :1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: MAY 15, 2009
Gram Panchayat Umarpura, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.
...Petitioner
VERSUS
Director Rural Development & Panchayat Department, Punjab &
others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of 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: Mr.Vijay Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Praveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G.Punjab,
for respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Mr.Jatinder Singla, Advocate,
for respondent No.3.
*****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
Petitioner-Gram Panchayat filed an application under
Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act,
1961 (for short “the Act”) on 21.5.1963 seeking ejectment of Ruldu
Civil Writ Petition No.7372 of 2007 (O&M) :2:
Singh, father of respondent No.3. This was allowed and the
possession was also statedly taken on 7.8.1963. Thereafter,
respondent No.3 filed a civil suit seeking declaration to the effect that
he be declared owner in possession of the land in question. This
matter reached upto this court. However, the suit was dismissed on
the ground that the civil court would not have any jurisdiction to
decide the suit. Thereafter, respondent No.3 filed a petition under
Section 11 of the Act on 10.6.1997. This petition was accepted on
13.12.2004, against which the Gram Panchayat-petitioner filed an
appeal raising some material points. The grievance is that these
were not touched and the appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat was
dismissed on 20.1.2006. These orders accordingly are impugned in
the present writ petition.
The counsel for the petitioner has made a limited
grievance purely concerning the matter of procedure. As per the
counsel, the title suit under Section 11 of the Act was required to be
decided by the Collector like a civil suit and he could not have acted
to decide the same in a summary manner. As per the counsel, the
Collector was required to frame issues, allow the parties to lead
evidence and then decide the same. In support of his submission, the
counsel has drawn my attention to the case of Nant Singh Vs. Joint
Director, Panchayats, Punjab, 1993(3) P.L.R. 729. It has been held
in this case that proceedings under Section 11 of the Punjab Village
Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 are not summary in nature. It
is further observed that the principles underlying various provisions
have to be complied with for determining the question of title. It is
also observed that it is mandatory for Collector to frame necessary
Civil Writ Petition No.7372 of 2007 (O&M) :3:
issues and record evidence of both parties and decide the matter in
accordance with law.
Concededly, the procedure as envisaged and as laid
down by this court in Nant Singh’s case (supra) was not followed.
The submission by the counsel for respondent No.3 that though the
issues were not framed but will not make any substantial difference
as the plaint in this case was returned from the civil court and parties
were not allowed to lead evidence. Accordingly, the counsel would
submit that it will not make any substantial difference and that no
prejudice is seen to have been caused to the petitioner. He would
further submit that at no stage, the petitioner-Gram Panchayat
sought framing of issues or objected to procedure being followed.
The counsel would submit that the Gram Panchayat cannot be heard
to make a grievance in this regard at this stage.
I have considered the rival contentions made by the
counsel for the parties.
Once it is held that it is mandatory to decide application
under Section 11 of the Act like a civil suit and that it is not a
summary procedure, which is required to be followed, the question
whether it has led to any prejudice or not is not to be seen. If the
requirement under statute is held to be mandatory, it must be
followed.
The application filed under Section 11 of the Act could not
have been disposed of summarily. Even if the evidence was to be
recorded, the same was to be on the issues, which were never
framed. The procedure as envisaged and as approved by this court
in Nant Singh’s case (supra) was not followed. The impugned
Civil Writ Petition No.7372 of 2007 (O&M) :4:
orders, as such, cannot be sustained. These are set-aside. The
parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the
Collector on 3.7.2009, who shall follow the procedure as prescribed
under law. The parties would be at liberty to seek any interim relief
from the Collector.
The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
May 15, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE