Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 3866 (PNJ)

Jaipal v. Gram Panchayat, Mingni Khera

2006-10-12

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2006
JUDGMENT Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral) - The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 7.9.2006 passed by the learned District Judge, Hisar, reversing the order dated 2.8.2006 passed by the learned trial Court granting an injunction in favour of the petitioner and restraining the Gram Panchayat respondent No. 1 herein from taking possession of the property in dispute during the pendency of the suit. 2. The case of the petitioner was that on earlier occasion he had filed a suit for injunction in which on one of the issues, a finding was recorded that he was in possession of the property in dispute as a tenant on payment of fixed rent of Rs. 400/- per year. However, the suit was disposed of with liberty to the Gram Panchayat to seek eviction of the petitioner in accordance with law. The Gram Panchayat had initiated proceedings under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short the Act) and the learned Assistant Collector, Hisar, was pleased to order eviction of the petitioner and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 6,90,375/- @ Rs. 10,000/- per acre per year which was calculated from April 1991 to April 2006. 3. The case of the petitioner was that he was not in a position to pay this amount and therefore could not pursue the remedy of appeal and, therefore, the present suit has been filed. 4. The learned lower Appellate Court keeping in view the provisions of Section 13 of the Act has rightly come to the conclusion that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The petitioner otherwise has a statutory remedy of appeal against the order passed by the learned Assistant Collector. In view of this, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected by reversing the judgment of the learned trial Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as a matter of fact the order passed by the learned Asstt. Collector under Section 7 of the Act was itself without jurisdiction as the property in dispute was not shamlat deh though belonging to the Gram Panchayat and, therefore, the petitioner could have challenged the said order before the civil court. 6. I have considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Collector under Section 7 of the Act was itself without jurisdiction as the property in dispute was not shamlat deh though belonging to the Gram Panchayat and, therefore, the petitioner could have challenged the said order before the civil court. 6. I have considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It cannot be said that the learned Asstt. Collector lacked inherent jurisdiction as finding has been recorded by the learned Collector that the property is a shamlat deh and the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of the land in dispute and accordingly ordered the eviction of the petitioner. The petitioner has a statutory remedy of apply under the Act. Therefore, the learned Lower Appellate Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner does not have prima facie case to seek injunction against the Gram Panchayat. No merit. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.