Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 249 (PNJ)

Chand Singh v. Gram Panchayat

2004-03-03

G.S.SINGHVI

body2004
Judgment G.S.Singhvi, J. 1. This is a petition for quashing orders dated 8.6.1983 (Annexures P-8 and P-9) passed by District Development and Panchayat Offi-cer, Faridkot, and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (for short, "The Act") (respondent No. 2) and orders dated 24.12.1984 (Annexures P-10 and P-l 1) passed by Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur (respondent No. 3). 2. The petitioners father-Jattu Singh is said to be in possession of the land measuing 54 Kanals 10 Marias situated in village Rehurian Wali, Tehsii Muknar comprised in Khasra No. 18/2(3-16), 22/4(0-10), 23/2 (1-17) of Rect. No. 35, Khasra Nos.2/1 (5-2), 6/2 (0-9), 7/1(0-16) of Rect. No. 55, Khasra No. 4 (4-0), 14/2 (9-9), of Rectange No. 141, Khasra Nos.l9(1-13),20/l (0-10) of Rect. 61, Khasra No. 7/4 (1-16) of Rect. No. 55, Khasra No. 1/2 (5-17), 22(3-17) of Rect. N0.61,8(6-13), 9(1-18) of Rect. No. 55, which was recorded as Zumla Mushtarka Malkan in the Jamabandi for the year 1971-72. He i.e. Jatu Singh is said to have permitted Sarvshri Muktiar Sigh, Beera son of Arjan, Mithan Singh son of Kala Singh, Jaga Singh son of Nazar Singh, Mukand Singh son of Gajjan Singh Jagna Singh son of Waryam Singh, Jarnail Singh and Pala Singh and others to construct residential houses on different portions of the land. In 1977, Gram Panchayat, Rehurian Wali (respondent No. 1) through its Serpent filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act against Jetty Singh for eviction from 54 Canals 10 Marisa of land by claiming itself to be the owner and by describing him as unauthorized occupant. The same was dismissed by Collector, Muktsar vide order dated 20.7.1979 (Annexure P-2). Appeal filed by respondent No. l was dismissed by respondent No. 3 vide his order dated 21.10.1981 (Annexure P-3). After about one year and two months, respondent No. l filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act for eviction of Jang Singh son of Hari Singh from an area measuring 22 Kanals 14 Marias falling in Khewat No. 238, Khatoni No. 562, Khasra Nos.22/3(4-0) of Rect. No. 55 and Khewat No. 235 Khatoni No. 540, Khasra No. 142 (9-0). Similar application was filed for eviction of Jitta Singh son of Sajjan Singh from an area measuring 27 Kanals 15 Marias com prised in Khasra Nos.55M/2/1(5-2), 6/2(0-9), 7/4(1-6), 8(6-13), 9(1-18) in Khewat No. 238, Khatoni No. 558 and 61/M/19(1-13 and 20/1(0-10), 21/2(5-17), 22(3-17). No. 55 and Khewat No. 235 Khatoni No. 540, Khasra No. 142 (9-0). Similar application was filed for eviction of Jitta Singh son of Sajjan Singh from an area measuring 27 Kanals 15 Marias com prised in Khasra Nos.55M/2/1(5-2), 6/2(0-9), 7/4(1-6), 8(6-13), 9(1-18) in Khewat No. 238, Khatoni No. 558 and 61/M/19(1-13 and 20/1(0-10), 21/2(5-17), 22(3-17). In re sponse to the notices issued by respondent No. 2, Jang Singh and Jitta Singh appeared on 8.6.1983 and made statements (Annexure P-6 and P-7) that they were not in possession of the land and that the same was in the possession of Jattu Singh son of Kala Singh. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 passed orders Annexures P-8 and P-9 for eviction of Jang Singh and Jitta Singh and authorised Block Development and Panchayat Officer. Muktsar to take possession of the land specified in application Annexures P-4 and P-5. 3. The petitioner has averred that he did not have any knowledge about orders An- nexures P-8 and P-9 till 12.12.1983 when the patwari of the Village informed him about the same. He then obtained certified copies of both the orders and filed appeals which were dismissed by respondent No. 3 vide orders dated 24.12.1984 (Annexures P-10 and P-ll). 4. Shri Sanjeev Bindra, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that orders An- nexures P8 and P9 are liable to be declared illegal and quashed because respondent No. 2 did not have the jurisdiction to direct forcible taking over of possession of the land specified therein without giving notice to Jattu Singh, who, as per the statements made by Jang Singh and Jitta Singh, was in possession of the land. He further argued that the very initiation of proceedings of eviction against Jang Singh and Jitta Singh, who were not in possession of the land, shows that respondent No. 1 wanted to obtain orders of eviction at the back of Jattu Singh and by passing orders Annexures P-8 and P-9 with- out issuing notice to Jattu Singh and without giving him opportunity to show cause against the proposed eviction, respondent No. 2 became a party to the nefarious design of respondent No. l. Learned counsel then argued that orders Annexures P10 and Pll are liable to be declared as vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record and quashed because respondent No. 3 did not consider the all important issue that respon- dent No. 2 did not have the jurisdiction to pass orders of eviction without giving notice of applications (Annexures P4 and P5) to Jattu Singh because Jang Singh and Jitta Singh unequivocally stated that the land was in his possession. In the end, Shri Bindra argued that the impugned orders should be declared as barred by res judicata because the previous application filed for eviction of Jattu Singh was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 20.7.1979 (Annexure P2) and appeal filed against that order was dis-missed by the predecessor of respondent No. 3 vide order dated 21.10.1981 (Annexure P3). 5. Shri Sukhbir Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 supported the impugned orders and argued that the petitioner does not have the locus standi to challenge the name because the land which was subject-matter of applications Annexures P-4 and P-5 filed by respondent No. l is different than the land in respect of which the previous ap- plication was filed against Jattu Singh. He referred to the averments contained in para- graph 2 of the writ petition and contents of Annexures P-4 and P-5 to show that the land measuring 54 kanals 10 marlas, which was in the possession of Jattu Singh was not sub- ject matter of the subsequent applications filed by respondent No. 1. He referred to the averments contained in para- graph 2 of the writ petition and contents of Annexures P-4 and P-5 to show that the land measuring 54 kanals 10 marlas, which was in the possession of Jattu Singh was not sub- ject matter of the subsequent applications filed by respondent No. 1. Learned counsel emphasised that the petitioner has not produced any document before this Court to show that Jattu Singh was in possession of the land in relation to which two applications (An- nexures P-4 and P-5) were filed by respondent No. l in 1983 and argued hat the peti- tioner cannot question the right of respondent No. l to secure possession of the said land. 6. I have given serious thought to the respective arguments and carefully perused the record. It is true that in their statements (Annexures P-6 and P-7) Jang Singh and Jitta Singh, against whom respondent No. l had filed applications for eviction, stated that they were not in possession of the land in dispute and that the same was in possession of Jattu Singh and respondent No. 2 passed the orders of eviction without issuing notice to Jattu Singh, but that by itself is not sufficient for invalidating the impugned orders because no evidence had been produced before respondent No. 3 and none has been pro- duced before this Court to show that the land which was subject matter of Annexures P- 4 and P-5 and orders Annexures P-8 and P-9 belonged to Jattu Singh or that he was in possession thereof. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be treated as person aggrieved by the orders of eviction passed by respondent No. 2 and the dismissal of his appeals by re- spondent No. 3 cannot be declared as vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record. 7. The argument of Shri Bindra that the impugned orders should be declared as barred by res judicata also merits rejection because a reading of the averments contained in paragraph 2 of the writ petition, application Annexures P-4 and P-5 on the other hand shows that the land, which was subject matter of the previous proceedings was different than the one from which the eviction was sought by respondent No. 1 in the subsequent proceedings. Therefore, the finding recorded in orders Annexures P-2 and P-3 cannot be treated as resjudicata against the proceedings of eviction initiated by respondent No. l in 1983. 8. No other point has been argued. 9. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed.