Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1135 (RAJ)

Gurdas Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2006-04-10

DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2006
Judgment Dinesh Maheshwari, J.-The petitioner submits that despite decree of a competent Court for not dispossessing him without adopting due process of law, he is sought to be dispossessed in violation of the decree; and further submits that the Collector of the District has become a party to such an illegal and unauthorised attempt on the part of a Gram Panchayat and has even issued orders that the petitioner would not approach the Courts of law. The submissions suggest a direct attack on the legal and constitutional rights of the petitioner. However, a simple look at the record of the case makes it clear that the petitioner is not correct in his assertions and interpretations nor conduct of the petitioner has been bona fide; and the plea raised by the petitioner is nothing less than dishonest a plea. 2. The subject matter of this writ Petition is 11 bighas and 5 biswas of land in Murabba Nos. 18 to 29 at Chak Sahibsinghwala. It appears that the petitioner filed a suit before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sriganganagar under Sections 188, 88 and 92-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act against the Gram Panchayat, Sahibsinghwla in the year 1993 with the submissions that he was cultivating the land in question on contract basis since the year 1967 and the land, though recorded as Khatedari land of the Gram Panchayat, was in his possession but the defendant was seeking to forcibly dispossess him; that the plaintiff being in possession for 20 years has acquired rights by way of adverse possession and was entitled to be declared Khatedar tenant; and that he was entitled to have the defendant restrained from illegal interference in his possession. The Gram Panchayat in its written statement submitted that the plaintiff had taken the land in the year 1993-1994 on contract by stating a bid of Rs. 30,000/-but deposited only Rs. 8,000/-and did not deposit the remaining amount and for non-payment of the amount, the contract bid stood cancelled and possession of the plaintiff-petitioner became that of a trespasser; that the plaintiff had been regularly served with notices for delivering possession but he was illegally retaining the same and was not entitled for any relief . 3. After trial, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sriganganagar proceeded to decide the suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner by the Judgment and decree dated 25.01.2006 (Annexure-3). 3. After trial, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sriganganagar proceeded to decide the suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner by the Judgment and decree dated 25.01.2006 (Annexure-3). The learned Sub-Divisional Officer found that the plaintiff had failed to establish by evidence that he was regularly taking the land in auction since the year 1967 for the purpose of cultivation and found that he had taken the land in auction in the year 1993-1994 only; that there arise no question of adverse possession against the defendant particularly when the land was taken only on contract basis and the plaintiff was not entitled for any declaration of Khatedari rights; that the plaintiff had failed to deposit the remaining contract amount and, therefore, his possession was that of a trespasser only; that he was not entitled for any perpetual injunction either as he was not a Khatedar tenant of the land in question. However, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer was of opinion that injunction to the limited extent as envisaged by Section 92-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, could be issued that the plaintiff be not dispossessed without due process of law. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer, therefore, decided the suit thus.- 4. It appears that in view of the decision by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, the Gram Panchayat convened a meeting in the presence of the Collector of the area and it was resolved that the illegal possession of the plaintiff-petitioner be removed. If further appears that the learned Collector made observation that this year the crops would be taken by the petitioner and new contract after 13th April would be extended by the Panchayat by way of auction and Guardas Singh (Petitioner) would hand over possession to the Panchayat after taking the crops and would not approach any Court and that the dispute was put to an end with the consent of all. The petitioner contends that he was forced to sign these proceedings. 5. On this writ petition being taken up for consideration on 05.04.2005, learned Counsel for the petitioner was posed a specific question as to whether the petitioner has filed any appeal against the part of the Judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Sriganganagar whereby the relief claimed by him under Sections 188 and 88 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act were refused and the learned Counsel sought some time to clarify the facts. Learned Counsel informed that Panchayat had proceeded to auction the land and was directed to place relevant material in that regard by way of affidavit or documentary evidence. The petitioner thereupon filed an affidavit dated 05.04.2006 stating thus,- "1. That the land in question was auctioned by the Gram Panchayat Sahibsinghwala on 04.04.2006 to Lakhveer Singh on worth Rupees 32,200/-. Regarding the auction on the land in question a notice was issued in the newspaper Pratap Kesari on 28.03.2006 which is being filed alongwith this affidavit. 2. That the Gram Panchayat Sahibsinghwala directed the petitioner to vacate the land in question upto 13.04.2006. 3. That the petitioner filed an appeal against the order of SDO Sriganganagar dated 25.01.2006 before RAA Sriganganagar for declaration under Section 88 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act." 6. Learned Counsel vehemently contended that the petitioner has acquired rights by way of adverse possession; that the defendant cannot claim possession and in any case cannot forcibly dispossess the petitioner; that the Collector having passed the order on 03.02.2006 the remedy before the revenue Courts would be an exercise in futility; that learned Collector had no authority whatsoever to make such an order curtailing the legal and constitutional rights of the petitioner. The submissions are absolutely bereft of substance in the fact situation of the present case and cannot be countenanced in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 7. It is an admitted position that the petitioner is not a Khatedar tenant of the land in question. The petitioner has only been given the land on contract basis by the Gram Panchayat and as per the findings standing at present, the petitioner has not even honoured the terms of the contract. The Sub-Divisional Officer has found that there was no evidence available on record to show petitioners continuous possession from the year 1967 and in any case, such being only a permissive possession under a contract, could not result in adverse possession. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer has yet passed an order with reference to Section 92-A of the Act for not dispossessing the petitioner by illegal means. 8. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer has yet passed an order with reference to Section 92-A of the Act for not dispossessing the petitioner by illegal means. 8. So far the meeting dated 03.02.2006 is concerned, it appears that after the aforesaid Judgment and decree dated 25.01.2006, the learned Collector has participated in the proceedings in the Gram Panchayat only to bring about some settlement as the present one seems to be a contentious issue between the petitioner on one hand and the Gram Panchayat on the other. The observation as made by the learned Collector seems to have been made only as a Conciliator and it seems that the petitioner was available in the meeting and probably agreed to the decision, which was nothing more than a logical consequence of the Judgment and decree of the competent Court, wherein the petitioner was already found to be a trespasser and having no right to retain the land. 9. This writ petition has been filed only on 27.03.2006 whereas the aforesaid meeting took place as back as on 03.02.2006; and wherein it appears that it was agreed that the petitioner could take the present crops and then to make contributions towards boundary wall of the cremation ground and to deliver possession of the land on 13th April. The petitioner has claimed in this writ petition that he was forced to sign the order-sheet to defeat his rights. It is strange that the petitioner has levelled such allegations by filing writ petition only on 27.03.2006 at the last moments when the time approached for honouring the commitments. The bona fide attempts of a revenue authority to bring about settlement to quell the dispute, that too in conformity with the decree of the competent Court cannot be permitted to be questioned by the petitioner at his whims and wishes, particularly when the petitioner has otherwise failed to show any legal right in him to retain possession of the land in question. 10. Even otherwise, the petitioner has never adhered to any decision taken at the meeting dated 03.02.2006 nor it has operated against any of his legal rights. The petitioner has admittedly filed an appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 25.01.2006, although even while answering the queries of this Court, the petitioner has taken care not to state the date of filing of such appeal. The petitioner has admittedly filed an appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 25.01.2006, although even while answering the queries of this Court, the petitioner has taken care not to state the date of filing of such appeal. Be that as it may, the petitioner having already adopted legal remedies against the Judgment and decree dated 25.01.2006 cannot be said to have been prejudiced by the observations made by the learned Collector. 11. Further, under the very same Judgment and decree dated 25.01.2006, there is already existing an injunction under Section 92-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act for not dispossessing the petitioner illegally. If at all the petitioner is under any threat of illegal dispossession, nothing has prevented the petitioner from taking recourse to suitable legal remedies if there be any violation of the decree granted by the competent Court. However, the suggestions as sought to be made in this writ petition and the relief claimed herein seem to be entirely inapt and cannot be termed as bona fide. 12. Having examined the plaint averments and so also the findings recorded by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Sriganganagar, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has no such legal right, for whose protection, a writ is required to be issued; and on the contrary, the conduct of the petitioner as discernible from the material available on record makes it clear that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief from this writ Court. 13. The petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily.