Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 428 (PNJ)

Jagir Singh v. State of Punjab

2013-04-03

Rajive Bhalla, Rekha Mittal

body2013
JUDGMENT Rajive Bhalla, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing orders dated 26.07.2010 (Annexure P4) and 29.06.2011 (Annexure P5), passed by the Collector-cum-Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Patiala and Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab, respectively. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition, filed under 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1961 Act'), has been dismissed, without issuing any notice to respondent No. 4 Gram Panchayat, without framing any issue or affording any opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence. The Appellate Authority, has dismissed the appeal, summarily, without considering the patent error of jurisdiction, committed by the Collector. It is further argued that Section 11 of the 1961 Act, requires the Collector while deciding a disputed question of title, to follow a procedure akin to the procedure of a civil Court, namely, issue notice, frame issues, grant an opportunity to lead evidence and only thereafter, determine the question whether the land, in dispute, vests or does not vest in a Gram Panchayat. The failure of the Collector to follow this procedure, renders the impugned orders, null and void. 3. Counsel for the Gram Panchayat is not present, nor has any reply been filed on behalf of the Gram Panchayat. 4. We have heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned orders and have no hesitation in holding that the impugned orders are null and void as they suffer from rudimentary errors of jurisdiction. The impugned orders are an example of the perfunctory manner in which revenue officers, conferred with quasi judicial powers, decide serious disputes of title. Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953 bears the title “Decision of claims of right, title or interest in Shamilatdeh” and enables a person or a Panchayat to approach the Collector for a declaration that the land, in dispute, vests or does not vest in a Panchayat. The statement of claim, made under Section 11 of the 1961 Act, is to be signed and verified in the manner prescribed and is, thereafter, to be also decided in the manner prescribed. Rule 21A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 (in short, 'the 1964 Rules') which prescribes the manner for deciding any claim of right, title or interest in shamilatdeh, reads as follows: “21A. Rule 21A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 (in short, 'the 1964 Rules') which prescribes the manner for deciding any claim of right, title or interest in shamilatdeh, reads as follows: “21A. Decision of claim of right, title or interest in shamilatdeh (1) Any person claiming a right, title or interest in any land vested or deemed to have been vested in the Panchayat may submit an application in the form of a statement duly signed and verified in the manner provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, supported by a copy of the revenue record within thirty days from the date of accrual of cause of action to the Collector. (2) The Collector shall, after receiving the application, sent notice to the Panchayat concerned along with the copy of the application directing it to appear before him on the date fixed for the purpose. The Collector shall decide the matter, after affording a reasonable opportunity to the parties to substantiate their respective claims.” 5. A perusal of Rule 21A of the 1964 Rules, reveals that the statement of claim is to be submitted, in writing, duly signed and verified in the manner prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, duly supported by a copy of the revenue record. The Collector, shall, after receipt of such a claim, send a notice to the Gram Panchayat concerned along with a copy of the application directing it to appear before him on the date fixed and thereafter, decide the matter, after affording a “reasonable opportunity” to the parties substantiate their respective claims. 6. A long line of judicial precedents have consistently held that as the Collector is a substitute for civil Courts, he shall, as far as possible, follow a procedure akin to the procedure adopted by civil Court, for deciding a suit. The Collector is, therefore, required, while adjudicating a dispute, under Section 11 of the 1961, to call upon the Panchayat, or where the Gram Panchayat has filed a petition, the opposite party to file its reply and upon receipt of reply, if any, to frame issues, grant an opportunity to parties to lead evidence and then, proceed to record his opinion in favour or against the claim set out in the petition. The executive officers conferred with powers of a 'Collector' under the 1961 Act, however, follow these binding precedents and procedure prescribed by Rule 21 of the 1964 Rules more in breach than in compliance. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that time may have, come for the State of Punjab to reconsider conferment of powers, under Section 11 of the 1961 Act, upon civil Courts as we have come across innumerable orders, where petitions, under section 11 of the 1961 Act, are decided in a summary manner, without following any procedure, as has happened in the present case. 7. A perusal of the order passed by the Collector reveals that notice was not issued to the Gram Panchayat, issues were not framed, and no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to lead evidence before the petition was dismissed, in a summary and perfunctory manner. The Appellate Authority failed to discern this error and dismissed the appeal. 8. In this view of the matter, as the Collector and the Appellate Authority have committed serious errors of jurisdiction, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded to the Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Patiala (exercising the powers of the 'Collector' under 'the 1961 Act'), to decide the matter, afresh and in accordance with law, within six months from parties putting in appearance before him, on 07.05.2013. 9. The matter be placed before the Chief Secretary, Punjab, to consider whether it would be appropriate, in view of our observations, in the body of the order, to consider conferring jurisdiction upon civil Courts, to decide disputes, under section 11 of the 1961 Act.