Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1475 (RAJ)

Kaur Singh v. Panchayat Samiti, Bhadra

2002-08-27

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. 1. This writ petition under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners against the respondents on 20-4-92 with a prayer that order dated 21-5-91 (Annex.7) passed by the Panchayat Samiti Bhadra by which it cancelled patta dated 15-2-59 (Annex. 1) issued in favour of father of petitioners and de Glared the disputed land as land belonging to School and judgment dated 5-8-92 (Annex.8) passed by the Collector, Sri Ganganagar by which the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 21-5-91 (Annex.7) passed by the Panchayat Samiti, Bhadra was upheld be quashed and set aside. 2. The facts as put forward by the petitioners are as under: i) That late Shri Gugan Ram father of the petitioners purchased a plot from Gram Panchayat Gojiwala through Patta (Annex.1) dated 15-2-59. Before patta dated 15-2-59 (Annex.1) was issued in favour of the father of the petitioners, he had deposited a sum of As. 392.50 with the Gram Panchayat Gojiwala through receipt dated 15-2-59 (Annex.2). ii) After death of father of the petitioners, the land devolved on the petitioners and the same is still in their possession. It is further submitted by the petitioners that so far as school is concerned, the same is situated in the old Khasra No. 262 now in Khasra No. 41. The petitioner had also produced a map (Annex.4) showing division of School boundary and Abadi of village. iii) That one Shri Dei Ram made an application (Annex.5) before the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Bhadra on 3-8-90 alleging that the petitioners were going to make illegal encroachment on the land of the School. That application dated 3-8-90 (Annex.5) was treated as an appeal by the BDO and thereafter on 11- 11-92 site was inspected and through impugned order dated 21-5-91 (Annex.7), the Panchayat Samiti cancelled the patta (Annex.1) issued in favour of father of the petitioners inter alia holding that: A) That the petitioner Kaur Singh through his reply filed a copy of patta in place of original patta issued in the name of his father. B) That on the site, possession was not taken by the petitioners. C) That on the very face, it appears that encroachment on the land of the school was made. D) That in absence of original patta, copy of patta was not found to be genuine one. B) That on the site, possession was not taken by the petitioners. C) That on the very face, it appears that encroachment on the land of the school was made. D) That in absence of original patta, copy of patta was not found to be genuine one. E) That title as well as ownership of the petitioners was not found on the disputed land. F) That the disputed land was declared to be belonging to the School and hence, patta (Annex.1) was cancelled. iv) Aggrieved from the order dated 21-5-91 (Annex. 7), the petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 26A of the old Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1959 (sic) (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1959) and that appeal was decided through judgment dated 5-8-92 (Annex.8) by the Collector, Sri Ganganagar and the appeal of the petitioners was dismissed and the order dated 21-5-91 (Annex.7) passed by the Panchayat Samiti, Bhadra was upheld and while dismissing the appeal, the learned Collector came to the following conclusions : A) That the petitioners were asked to produce original patta and for that opportunities were given, but original patta was not produced by the petitioners. C) That Panchayat Samiti gave full opportunity of hearing to both the parties as the petitioners themselves filed reply before Panchayat Samiti. D) That the site was also inspected on 4-5 91. E) That the file pertaining to issuance of patta (Annex.1) in favour of father of petitioners was not traceable even in Gram Panchayat Gojiwala and Amrapura. G) That from the inspection report, it was found that the petitioners were not in possession of the disputed land and an encroachment was found on the land of the School by the petitioners. H) That since no evidence in support of genuineness of patta (Annex. 1) was produced by the petitioners and further file pertaining to issuance of patta was not traceable, in these circumstances, the learned Collector came to the conclusion that the Panchayat Samiti rightly cancelled the patta (Annex.1) and the appeal filed by the petitioners was accordingly dismissed. V) Aggrieved from the judgments dated 21-5- 91 (Annex.7) and 5-8-92 (Annex.8) this writ petition has been preferred with the above mentioned prayer. 3. V) Aggrieved from the judgments dated 21-5- 91 (Annex.7) and 5-8-92 (Annex.8) this writ petition has been preferred with the above mentioned prayer. 3. In this writ petition, the main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that findings recorded by the Panchayat Samiti as well as The Collector in judgments dated 21-5-91 (Annex.7) and 5-8-92 (Annex.8) respectively are erroneous one as the land did not belong to the School, but on the contrary, the petitioners are owner and in possession of the disputed land in question and so far as production of original patta before the Panchayat Samiti Bhadra and the Collector, Sri Ganganagar is concerned, no doubt it was not produced before both of them, but by this fact only, the case of the petitioners should not have been rejected and the petitioners are now ready to produce the original patta whenever it is demanded and further the misplacement of record is not the fault of the petitioners and, therefore, the findings recorded by the Panchayat Samiti, Bhadra as well as the Collector, Sri Ganganagar are perverse and should be set aside. 4. No reply has been filed by the respondents, but it has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that since there are concurrent findings of both the lower authorities, therefore, this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should not interfere with these findings and hence this writ petition should be dismissed. 5. Before appreciating the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the legal position in respect of applicability and scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India has to be seen.ON THE POINT OF APPLICABILITY AND SCOPE OF ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 6. It is well established that it is only when an order of a tribunal is violative of the fundamental basic principles of justice and fair play or where a patent or flagrant error in procedure or law has crept in or where the order passed results in manifest injustice, that a court can justifiably intervene under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. 7. The power of general superintendence conferred by Article 227 involves a duty on the part of the High Court to keep all courts and tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction within the bounds of their authority, to see that they do what their duty requires and they do it in a legal manner. This means that the High Court can interfere in cases of (a) Erroneous assumption or excess of jurisdiction. (b) Refusal to exercise jurisdiction. (c) Error of law apparent on the face of the record, as distinguished from a mere mistake of law or error of law relating to jurisdiction. (d) Violation of principles of natural justice. (e) Arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority, or discretion. (f) Arriving at a finding which is perverse or based on no material. 8. Under Article 227, the High Court cannot interfere with the exercise of a discretionary power vested in the inferior Court or Tribunal, unless its finding or order is clearly perverse or patently unreasonable. 9. Keeping the above legal position in mind, the present writ petition is being decided. 10. There is no dispute on the point that the petitioners did not produce original patta neither before Panchayat Samiti nor before the Collector, Sri Ganganagar when the matter was sub-judice before them. In the above eventuality, if the learned counsel for the petitioners shows readiness to produce the original patta before this Court, it has got no relevancy nor proprietary demands that it should be produced before this Court as this Court while dealing a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not a court of appeal and if for non-production of original patta by the petitioners before the the Panchayat Samiti as well as the Collector, Sri Ganganagar, the Authorities drew adverse inference against the petitioners, by doing so, they have committed no illegality or irregularity. The Panchayat Samiti, Bhadra as well as Collector, Sri Ganganagar have given adequate and cogent reasons for cancelling the patta (Annex.1) and the findings recorded by both of them cannot be assessed as erroneous one and thus judgments passed by the Panchayat Samiti, Bhadra and the Collector, Sri Ganganagar do not require any interference of this Court while exercising power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 11. 11. In my considered opinion, the findings of facts recorded by the Panchayat Samiti, Bhadra as well as the Collector, Sri Ganganagar are based on correct appreciation of entire evidence and material available on record. It cannot be said that the findings of facts recorded by the Panchayat Samiti, Bhadra as well as Collector, Sri Ganganagar are erroneous or perverse or patently unreasonable or based on no material or evidence. The findings of facts recorded by the Panchayat Samiti, Bhadra as well as the Collector, Sri Ganganagar do not suffer from any basic illegality or infirmity. 12. For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned order dated 21-5-91 (Annex.7) passed by the Panchayat Samiti, Bhadra and the order dated 5-8-92 (Annex.8) passed by the Collector, Sri Ganganagar do not warrant any interference of this Court and this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. Cost made easy. Petition dismissed. *******