Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 3182 (PNJ)

Gram Panchayat v. Sukhdev Singh

2006-08-07

MAHESH GROVER

body2006
Judgment , J. 1. Gram Panchayat, Balad Kalan, Tehsil and District Sangrur has filed this appeal against the judgments and decrees dated 2.5.2002 and 14.8.2003 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur (hereinafter described as `the trial Court) and Additional District Judge, Sangrur (hereinafter referred to as `the lower Appellate Court), respectively. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Ajmer Singh and Baghel Singh (both of whom have since died and are represented by their legal representatives who are respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein ). It was pleaded that the land in question was owned by the appellant and the defendants were in illegal possession of the same and that order dated 30.3.1983 was passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation in its absence and that a fraud had been played upon it. It was averred that a fictitious file No.54/83 titled Ajmer Singh etc. V/s. Nagar Panchayat, Balad Kalan was created upon which the aforementioned order was passed. The appellant was never served and the file was never put up before the Additional Director, Consolidation. It was further averred that an application was filed before the Additional Director, Consolidation on 3.5.1994 bringing to his notice the aforementioned fraud and one Gurinder Singh, Ahlmad had reported on 2.5.1994 that the above said file was never entered and he had not consigned the file to the record room. The appellant had contended that the defendants had concealed all these proceedings and had kept it in dark. It was averred that had the appellant been served, it would have brought to the notice of the Additional Director, Consolidation the fact that two applications filed under Sec.42 of the East Punjab Consolidation of Holdings (Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for shot, `the 1948 Act) had been dismissed on 25.11.1971 and 21.9.1972. It was also averred that the appellant had filed application No.126 of 1994 before the Additional Director, Consolidation, Mohali, but the same was dismissed on 28.3.1995. 3. The defendants had contested the suit to say that there was no infirmity in order dated 30.3.1983. The fraud, as alleged by the appellant, was denied. It was also averred that the appellant had filed application No.126 of 1994 before the Additional Director, Consolidation, Mohali, but the same was dismissed on 28.3.1995. 3. The defendants had contested the suit to say that there was no infirmity in order dated 30.3.1983. The fraud, as alleged by the appellant, was denied. The mutation had already been entered and an appeal against the mutation was dismissed on 24.10.1994 and possession had been delivered to the defendants by the officials of the Consolidation Department and it was pleaded that the full opportunity was given to the appellant before passing of order dated 30.3.1983 and that Joginder Singh, Sarpanch had attended the Court of Additional Director, Consolidation and had filed a writ petition in the High Court as well which was dismissed on 3.6.1992. The Petition for Special Leave to Appeal against the judgment of the High Court was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 4.1.1995 and revision petition No.126 of 1994 was dismissed on 28.3.1995. It was pleaded that the suit is frivolous and even the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the same in view of the provisions of Sec.11 and 13 of the Punjab Village Common Land Act, 1961 (for short, `the 1961 Act ). 4. On the pleading of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the impugned order dated 30.3.1983 of Additional Director, Consolidation is illegal, null and void? OPP 2. Whether the impugned order dated 28.3.95 of Additional Director, Consolidation along with mutation No.3424 dated 12.5.1994 is illegal, null and void and without consideration as alleged in the plaint? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction as prayed for? OPP 4. Whether suit is not filed by a competent person? OPP 5. Whether the jurisdiction of this Court is barred under Sec.44 of Punjab Consolidation Act? OPD 6. Whether the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable as alleged in para No.12 of Additional Objection in written statement? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file present suit? OPD 7-A. Whether jurisdiction of this Court is barred Under Sections 11 and 13 of Punjab Village Common Land Act? OPD 7-B. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of suit land? OPD 8. Relief. 5. After perusing the evidence on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the appellant. OPD 7-A. Whether jurisdiction of this Court is barred Under Sections 11 and 13 of Punjab Village Common Land Act? OPD 7-B. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of suit land? OPD 8. Relief. 5. After perusing the evidence on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the appellant. In appeal, the findings of the trial Court were affirmed by the lower Appellate Court. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, who has primarily contended that order dated 30.3.1983 was the result of fraud and the entire proceedings were a nullity. 7. Having considered the contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the record, I am of the opinion that the appeal does not deserve to succeed. A scrutiny of the record shows that the fraud as alleged by the appellant was not established before the Courts below. The matter had been agitated before the Consolidation Authorities which went upto the Apex Court. The mere fact that the appellant could not bring to the notice of the Consolidation Authorities the fact relating to the passing of earlier orders under Sec.42 of the 1948 Act would not vitiate the subsequent proceedings on the ground of fraud. It is evident that the matter had been taken up to the Supreme Court which fact cannot be denied by the appellant. In view of the fact that the matter has been finally adjudicated upon by the highest Court of the land, the present suit seems to be an attempt to circumvent the orders which have already attained finality. 8. Even otherwise, the orders of the Consolidation Authorities could not have been challenged in a civil suit. The Civil Courts jurisdiction was clearly barred. The plea of fraud was probably raised to rope in the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Even if the averments of the appellant are taken to be correct that the defendants were in unauthorised possession of the land in question belonging to the Gram Panchayat, even then the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in view of the specific provisions in the 1961 Act. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. .