Lakhan Singh v. Gaon Sabha — 1979 DIGILAW 795 (ALL)

JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member - This is a reference made by the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, recommending that the revision filed by Lakhan Singh against the order dated August 16, 1974 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bidhuna, District Etawah in a case under Section 209 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, may be dismissed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. The Gaon Sabha Rampura had filed a suit seeking the ejectment of the revisionist Lakhan Singh as a trespasser from certain Gaon Sabha property. The revisionist contested the suit on various pleas. The trial court framed eight issues and on the request of the revisionist decided the following two issues- "No. 5. Whether the suit has been filed in accordance with law and rules. No. 6. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for not giving the date of trespass" as preliminary issues. The trial court decided both the issues in favour of the Gaon Sabha and against the revisionist. This order has been challenged in the present revision. 4. Two grounds have been taken in the revision, firstly, that the alleged resolution of the Land Management Committee is illegal and the meeting of the Land Management Committee will be presided by the Chairman of the Land Management Committee and not the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha and secondly, that the date of trespass is essential in a suit for possession otherwise the plaint is defective and liable to be rejected. 5. The first ground is entirely frivolous. The suit had been filed by the Gaon Sabha Rampura through the Pradhan. The Gaon Sabha was represented by the District Government Counsel. It was stated in the plaint that it was filing the suit for which the Land Management Committee had passed a resolution on September 11, 1973. Now, the resolution of the Land Management Committee does not become invalid and ineffective because the meeting has been presided by the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha. In fact the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha is the Chairman of the Land Management Committee and the Land Management Committee itself is a part of the Gaon Sabha. It is a Committee of the Gaon Sabha and does not have any independent existence. This will be clear from a perusal of the various provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. It is a Committee of the Gaon Sabha and does not have any independent existence. This will be clear from a perusal of the various provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Chapter VII of the Act deals with the Gaon Sabha. Section 117 of the Act provides for vesting of lands etc. which had vested in the State Government in the Gaon Sabha established for the whole or part of the village in which the land is situate. Sub-section (3) of section 117, states : "such Gaon Sabha or its Land Management Committee shall in respect of that thing perform, discharge and exercise the functions, duties and powers assigned, imposed or conferred by or under this Act or the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (U.P. Act XXVI of 1947) on a Gaon Sabha or a Land Management Committee. 'Section 117-A also refers to "such Gaon Sabha or its Land Management Committee." Section 122-A of the Act refers to the superintendence, management and control of Land Management Committee for and ' on behalf of the Gaon Sabha. Thus the use of the words "Gaon Sabha or its Land Management Committee" clearly shows that the Land Management Committee is a committee of the Gaon Sabha and does not have an independent existence. Under Section 117 of the Act, land vests in the Gaon Sabha and under Section 122-A the Land Management Committee merely acts for and on behalf of the Gaon Sabha. The Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha. who is duly elected, is under the law automatically the Chairman of the Land Management Committee. There is neither any further election nor appointment to the office of the Chairman of the Land Management Committee. Thus the meeting of the Land Management Committee is under the law to be presided by the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha as its Chairman. 6. As regards the plea that the suit was to be dismissed for not giving the date of trespass, it has no substance at all. In para 2 of the plaint it is clearly stated that the revisionist Lakhan Singh has made unauthorised trespass over the land without any right and without the consent of the Gaon Sabha with effect from 1376 Fasli. In para 2 of the plaint it is clearly stated that the revisionist Lakhan Singh has made unauthorised trespass over the land without any right and without the consent of the Gaon Sabha with effect from 1376 Fasli. The law does not require that in a suit under Section 209 UP ZA and I.R Act, the exact date or hour or minute or second of the time of trespass be given. In fact, it would be impossible for any party to do so. Trespass generally commences in the absence and not in the presence of the rightful tenure holder and had the law required the rightful tenure holder to indicate the precise hour or minute of trespass, a grave injustice would have been caused to the rightful tenure holder and trespass would be given a premium. It is therefore enough for the maintainability of a suit under Section 209 of the Act that the approximate period of the commencement of trespass (the year or month) may be indicated. 7. The trial court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction in deciding the issues against the revisionist and in favour of the Gaon Sabha. 8. The learned District Government Counsel has also contested the revision on the ground that no revision is in fact maintainable as the decision of the issues does not amount to decision of a case or proceeding. This contention has been accepted by the learned Additional Commissioner. I, however, need not go into this question whether or not a revision lies. Suffice it to say that the revision has not the slightest substance on merits. 9. Agreeing with the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner, I hereby dismiss the revision.