Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1378 (PNJ)

Rajesh Kumar v. Gram Panchayat Ishaqpur

2014-09-30

R.P.NAGRATH

body2014
R.P. Nagrath, J. 1. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the orders passed by the Courts below dismissing the prayer for temporary injunction in terms of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining respondent No. 1-Gram Panchayat in changing the nature of the suit land to agricultural land by way of auction. The land is entered as charand land i.e. for grazing cattle, in the revenue record. 2. The petitioner-plaintiff alleged himself to be proprietor of the village and therefore, has interest in this land. The total area of the suit land is 365 Bighas and 1 Biswa. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, counsel for respondent No. 1 and perused the orders passed by the Courts below. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that being proprietor of the village, he has every right for grazing his cattle in the suit land which is kept reserved during consolidation for common purposes. The case of the respondent-defendants was that the land has already been leased out vide resolution dated 01.05.2012 for two years in an open auction and revenue collection from auction is being used for welfare of the villagers. Learned trial Court, prima-facie, found on the basis of the documents especially the resolution dated 01.05.2012 that some portion of the land has already been leased out in an open auction. It may be seen that the Block Development and Panchayat Officer appeared before the Appellate Court and made a statement that land measuring 38 acres is left for the purpose of grazing of cattle of the village and this land is more than sufficient for the said purpose. 5. The Appellate Court first took notice of the aforesaid statement and that the Gram Panchayat has power to change user of the land for common purposes and dismissed the appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that any person challenging action of the Gram Panchayat with regard to lease has the remedy to approach the Collector under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short the "1961 Act") as applicable to the State of Haryana. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that any person challenging action of the Gram Panchayat with regard to lease has the remedy to approach the Collector under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short the "1961 Act") as applicable to the State of Haryana. Under Section 13 of the 1961 Act, no civil Court shall have the jurisdiction- "(a) to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether- (i)--- (ii)--- (b) in respect of any matter which any revenue court, officer or authority is empowered by or under this Act to determine; or (c) to question the legality of any action taken or matter decided by any revenue Court, officer or authority empowered to do so under this Act." 7. There is also Section 10-A of the 1961 Act, which prescribes the power of Assistant Collector, First Grade to cancel or vary sale, lease, gift or exchange etc. vested in panchayats. 8. Therefore, the remedy is provided under the aforesaid provisions of the 1961 Act. This question has to be ultimately determined on merits by the trial Court on the basis of facts and law. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Annexure P-3, a letter written by the State government to all the Deputy Commissioners in the State of Haryana, which was statedly filed before the appellate Court but has not been discussed. The government took notice of the fact that the land earmarked for charand/Gau Charand or for other common purposes vested in the Gram Panchayat is being auctioned by the Gram Panchayat for cultivation or other purposes in various Districts. The government after re-examination of the matter has decided that Gau Charand land should not be auctioned for cultivation or other purposes till further orders and in the meanwhile Deputy Commissioners have been directed to compile data and send to the government. 10. Such kind of letter is a direction for the Gram Panchayat to abide by the instructions but such would not be a statutory direction for inviting jurisdiction of the civil Court. This letter may, of course, be relied upon by the plaintiff-petitioner if the action is challenged before the Collector under the relevant provisions of the 1961 Act. 11. 10. Such kind of letter is a direction for the Gram Panchayat to abide by the instructions but such would not be a statutory direction for inviting jurisdiction of the civil Court. This letter may, of course, be relied upon by the plaintiff-petitioner if the action is challenged before the Collector under the relevant provisions of the 1961 Act. 11. From the facts of the instant case, learned Courts below have considered the relevant aspect of the matter and found no case being made for grant of temporary injunction for which essential factors to be considered were the prima-facie case, balance of convenience and also irreparable loss that may be caused. In view of the above discussion, the instant revision is dismissed. The trial Court is, however, directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously.