Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1976 DIGILAW 860 (ALL)

Gaon Sabha v. Dal Singar

1976-12-16

H.N.AGARWAL

body1976
JUDGMENT H.N. Agrawal, Member. - This is a second against the judgment and decree of S.M. Hasan, Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad in Appeal No. 362 of 1969, Sultanpur dated March 18, 1971 reversing the judgment and decree of Additional Sub-Divisional Officer, Amethi, district Sultanpur dated December 26, 1969 in Case No. 8/15 under Section 209, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. Gaon Sabha Mandauli and and filed a suit for the ejectment of the defendant-appellant Dalsingar as a trespasser from certain plots which were claimed to be Gaon Sabha property. The trial court held that the defendant was that Bhumidhar of the plots given in List A and Gaon Sabha had no concern with these plots, while he was a trespasser over the land given in list B which was Gaon Sabha property and ordered the ejectment of the defendant-appellant from the land given in List B. The learned Additional Commissioner has, however, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the trial court without going into merits on the sole ground that there was no proper resolution of the Land Management Committee for filing the suit in question. The Gaon Sabha and the Land Management Committee have now come up in second appeal against this order. 4. The learned District Government counsel has contended that the learned Additional Commissioner has wrongly held that there was no resolution of the Land Management Committee as required to be filed in present suit, and that in fact there are two resolutions of the Land Management Committee dated December 18, 1964 and August 11, 1970 on the file. The learned District Government Counsel has further argued that the learned Additional Commissioner has misinterpreted and misconstructed he above noted resolutions and has come to a wrong conclusion that these resolutions do not authorize the plaintiff to file the present suit. He has further argued that no plea about the want of alleged resolution was taken by the defendant in the written statement and no such issue was framed, and as such the lower appellate court wrongly allowed the same to be agitated for the first time in appeal. 5. He has further argued that no plea about the want of alleged resolution was taken by the defendant in the written statement and no such issue was framed, and as such the lower appellate court wrongly allowed the same to be agitated for the first time in appeal. 5. A perusal of the record shows that the Land Management Committee has in fact passed two resolutions, one of December 18, 1964 and the other of August 11, 1970 to the effect that legal action may be taken against those persons who had made unauthorized occupation of Gaon Sabha land. The question to be considered in the present case is whether these resolutions are adequate authority for filing a suit under Section 209, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act by the Gaon Sabha. 6. The question had been considered in the case Gram Samaj v. Dy. Dir. of Consolidation, 1969 R.D. 356. In this case the following observations have been made : Provisions pertaining to the commencement or defence, for and on behalf of the Gaon Samaj, of all suits or proceedings arising from or under the provisions of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act are contained in paragraphs 128 and 131 of the Gaon Samaj Manual. Paragraph 128 runs as below: "The conduct of Gaon Samaj litigation shall not depend upon the individual discretion of the Chairman of the Land Management Committee but shall be a matter of a resolution of the Land Management Committee as a whole. In urgent cases, however, the Chairman can take action on his own and seek ratification of the Land Management committee afterwards, by including it in the agenda of the next ensuing meeting." (Para 10). "This paragraph having been framed under the rule making power conferred on the State Government, shall have the force of law. (Para 11). "The next point for consideration is whether this provision is mandatory or merely directory. Suits by or against the Gaon Samaj are instituted or defended by the Land Management Committee on behalf of the Gaon Samaj. The Land Management Committee consists of many members and it is not necessary that what the Chairman desires is the will of the majority of the members of the Land Management Committee. The Chairman may like to institute a suit or defend it, while the majority of the members of the Land Management Committee may be of a different view. The Land Management Committee consists of many members and it is not necessary that what the Chairman desires is the will of the majority of the members of the Land Management Committee. The Chairman may like to institute a suit or defend it, while the majority of the members of the Land Management Committee may be of a different view. The same can be said where the Chairman does not wish to institute or defend a suit. Consequently, the first part of paragraph 128 is a salutary one and if it is held to be merely directory, it will cause complications in view of the fact that the will of the Chairman or a person authorised to sign the plaint or written statement shall prevail and it shall be open to him to defy the majority decision of the Land Management Committee."(Para 12). "Paragraph 128 is also a complete provisions. The State Government realized that occasions may arise where it may become necessary for the Chairman to take action before the Land Management Committee can meet to discus the matter. Consequently it was provided in paragraph 128 that in urgent cases the Chairman can take action on his own and seek ratification of the Land Management Committee by including it in the agenda of the next ensuing meeting. The underlying purpose evidently is that eventually the decision of the Land Management Committee shall prevail. If the Land Management Committee does not approve of the action taken, such action shall become ineffective and a suit, it already instituted, shall fail." (Para 13). 7. I am in complete agreement with the principle laid down in the above decision by the learned Judge. It will, however, be incorrect to read more than what has been specifically stated in this judgment. A suit by the Gaon Sabha under Section 209 can be filed against a trespasser not on the individual discretion of the Chairman but the collective will of the Land Management Committee as expressed in the form of a resolution. The resolution may be passed before the suit is filed. In urgent cases, however the suit is filed. In urgent cases, however, the suit can be filed first and later the action can be ratified by the Land Management Committee. 8. The resolution may be passed before the suit is filed. In urgent cases, however the suit is filed. In urgent cases, however, the suit can be filed first and later the action can be ratified by the Land Management Committee. 8. It is significant to note that neither in the Act nor in the Gaon Samaj Manual any specific form of the resolution has been prescribed. Thus, a resolution of the Land Management Committee authorising action against a specified individual for specified plots is as much a resolution within the meaning of Para 128 of the Gaon Samaj Manual as a general resolution authorising legal action against all persons in an unauthorised occupation of the Gaon Sabha land. Such a resolution does not become invalid merely because the names of the unauthorised occupiers or the details of the plots occupied by them in an unauthorised manner are not enumerated in the resolution. These are matters within the jurisdiction of the competent court and the Court shall no doubt consider whether a person is occupying any land in an authorised manner or not. The sole purpose of the resolution is to ensure that action is taken by the office bearers of the Gaon Sabha in accordance with the collective will of the Land Management Committee. The word 'resolution' merely means that the members of the committee have collectively resolved to undertake a certain course of action. It is, therefore, quite meaningless to say that a resolution of the Land Management Committee unanimously resolving to take legal action against persons occupying Gaon Sbaha land in an unauthorised manner is not a resolution in the eye of law. A resolution is not the same thing as a plaint or a written statement which is filed in a Court of law. It is also not a judgment of a Court of law. Thus, the details about the name, parentage, age and residential address of the trespasser, the plot numbers and the area of the Gaon Sabha land wrongfully occupied, the manner in which the wrongful occupation has occurred, the date from which such wrongful occupation has commenced and the damages and other relief claimed, are details to be recorded in the plaint filed by the Gaon Sabha. A resolution of the Land Management Committee does not become invalid merely on the ground that these details are not incorporated in the resolution itself. A resolution of the Land Management Committee does not become invalid merely on the ground that these details are not incorporated in the resolution itself. In the light of the above discussion, I would hold that the learned Additional Commissioner has completely misconstrued the provisions of the Gaon Samaj Manual and has misinterpreted the resolutions of the Land Management Committee. He has not bothered to hear the appeal on merits and his order setting aside the judgment of the trial court is completely perverse and erroneous in law. 9. Accordingly, I allow the second appeal, set aside the order of the learned Additional Commissioner, and direct that shall now proceed to hear the first appeal on merits.