Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 115 (PNJ)

Bhartu v. Gram Panchayat

2004-02-03

VINEY MITTAL

body2004
Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. This order shall dispose of three Civil Writ Petitions being C.W.P. No. 5004 of 1988. C.W.P. No. 5005 of 1988 and C.W.P. No. 5006 of 1988 as the common questions of law and facts are involved. 2. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken out from C.W.P. No. 5004 of 1988. 2. On December 10, 1987, respondent No. 1 Gram Panchayat, Sirsi filed a petition under the provisions of Public Premises Act seeking the eviction of the present petitioner, Bhartu. Even prior to the issuance of the notice upon Bhartu, an application was filed by the Gram Panchayat seeking conversion of the aforesaid petition to a petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village (Common Lands) Regulation Act, 1961. The preliminary evidence on behalf of the Gram Panchayat was recorded. The gram Panchayat placed reliance upon a resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat along with Khasra Girdawari and Jamabandi. Thereafter, a notice was issued to Bhartu. 3. The learned Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Karnal fixed the matter for February 26, 1988. The parties were directed to be present at the spot. The present petitioner, Bhartu accordingly appeared on February 26, 1988 before the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Karnal at the spot. At that time, he made a request that since his counsel was not available, the matter be adjourned. As a matter of fact, four cases, pertained to the present petitioners, Bhartu, Prem Singh and Jagdish, whereas the 4th case pertained to one Jai Singh. On that date, i.e. February 26, 1988, the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Karnal recorded the statement of Bhartu and other persons in all the four cases. The request for adjournment was declined. No opportunity was granted for filing the written statement. An eviction order was passed on the basis of preliminary evidence and the statement of the present petitioner, Bhartu. 4. The matter was taken up in appeal. In total four appeals were filed. Three by the present petitioners in three writ petitions and the 4th by Jai Singh. Vide order dated April 26, 1988, the three appeals filed by the three present petitioners were rejected. The eviction order passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Karnal was maintained. However, the appeal filed by Jai Singh was accepted by the Collector vide order dated April 27, 1988. 5. Vide order dated April 26, 1988, the three appeals filed by the three present petitioners were rejected. The eviction order passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Karnal was maintained. However, the appeal filed by Jai Singh was accepted by the Collector vide order dated April 27, 1988. 5. The petitioners have accordingly felt aggrieved and approached this Court through the present writ petitions. 6. Upon put to the notice, respondent Gram Panchayat has chosen to contest the present writ petitions. Written statements have been filed. It has been averred in the written statement that the present petitioner was in fact an un-authorised person and the lease in his favour has since expired and he has not paid any lease money/mesne profits for the use and occupation of the land. He was not entitled to invoke the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. It has further been averred that the petitioner was in fact an unauthorised occupant and as such, had no right to continue in possession of the land. 7. I have heard Shri Raj Mohan Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri P.S. Rana, Advocate, appearing for Gram Panchayat, respondent No. 1 and with their assistance, have also gone through the record of the case. 8. It may be pertinent to note here that vide order dated June 6, 1988, this Court had stayed the operation of the order of ejectment. Accordingly, the petitioner is in continuous possession of the land in dispute as yet. 9. The facts are not disputed. It has not been disputed at all by respondent No. 1 that the case was fixed for April 26, 1988 by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Karnal for spot inspection. The present petitioner was also required to file written statement on that date. A request was made by the petitioner. It was stated that since his counsel was not available, therefore, the matter be adjourned to enable him to seek legal assistance. Request of the petitioner Was however declined by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Karnal. His statement was recorded. On the basis of preliminary evidence produced by the Gram Panchayat eviction order was passed. 10. It is thus apparent that the petitioner has been denied even a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. Request of the petitioner Was however declined by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Karnal. His statement was recorded. On the basis of preliminary evidence produced by the Gram Panchayat eviction order was passed. 10. It is thus apparent that the petitioner has been denied even a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. Neither he was allowed a reasonable opportunity for filing the written statement nor he was even otherwise afforded an opportunity to put forward his side of the case. It is also not disputed by respondent, Gram Panchayat that under identical circumstances, the Collector had accepted the appeal filed by Jai Singh vide order dated April 27, 1988. Case of aforesaid Jai Singh was identically situated. It is not understandable as to what prevailed with the Collector to accept the appeal of Jai Singh, whereas the appeals of other three persons (the present petitioners) were rejected. 11. Accordingly, the present civil writ petition is allowed and orders dated February 26, 1988 and April 26, 1988 and April 26, 1988 are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade for fresh decision in accordance with law. The learned Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Karnal shall now afford an opportunity to the present petitioner to file written statement. Thereafter, the parties shall be allowed to lead their evidence. However, since the matter has become very old during the pendency of the writ petition, the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Karnal is directed to afford only two effective opportunities to respondent No. 1 Gram Panchayat to conclude its entire evidence at its own responsibility. Like-wise, the petitioner shall also be granted two effective opportunities to lead evidence at his own responsibility. Thereafter, the case shall be decided by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Karnal within four months of the conclusion of the evidence by the parties. 12. Before parting with the judgment, it is made clear that respondent No. 1 shall be at liberty to claim all the mesne profits from the petitioner for use and occupation of the land in dispute and even if an amendment has to be made in the original application seeking the aforesaid relief, the same shall be permitted. The present petition stands allowed in view of the aforesaid observations. Parties though their counsel are directed to appear before the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Karnal on March 15, 2004. The present petition stands allowed in view of the aforesaid observations. Parties though their counsel are directed to appear before the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Karnal on March 15, 2004. Copy of the order be given Dasti on payment of usual charges.