Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 732 (PNJ)

Raghbir Singh @ Raghvir Singh v. State of Punjab

2024-04-24

LALIT BATRA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2024
JUDGMENT Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral) The disputed khasra number is carried in khasra No. 31//1(8-0). The said khasra number is entered in the records of rights in the ownership of the Gram Panchayat concerned. However, the present petitioners claim, that they are the title holders over the said khasra number. The said claim became rested, upon an order Annexure P-4, rendered by the Director, Land Records, wherebys the mistake in respect of the apposite musteel number hence resulting in the same thus being erroneously entered in favour of the Gram Panchayat concerned, rather was ordered to be corrected. The Gram panchayat concerned, became aggrieved from Annexure P-4, and, thereby for annulling the said annexure, it proceeded to institute a declaratory suit, cast under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961'), thus before the Collector concerned. Through a decision made on the said suit, on 17.5.2016 (Annexure P-7), the Collector concerned, after upholding Annexure P-4, proceeded to decline the declaratory relief, as became claimed by the Gram Panchayat concerned, vis-a-vis, the disputed khasra No. 31//1(8-0). Resultantly, the Gram Panchayat concerned, filed an appeal against Annexure P-7, before the Joint Development Commissioner (exercising the powers of the Appellate Authority under the Act of 1961). On the relevant statutory appeal bearing No. 104 of 2016, the appellate authority concerned, through Annexure P-8, after reversing Annexure P-7, proceeded to accord the declaratory relief to the Gram Panchayat concerned. The making of Annexure P-8 brings grievance to the successors-in-interest of one Ujagar Singh and thereby they are led to challenge it, through theirs instituting the instant writ petition before this Court. 2. The reason, as became assigned by the appellate authority concerned, for reversing, and, upsetting Annexure P-7, is embodied in the hereinafter assigned premise. "x x x x The petitioner on issue no.3 as to whether the petitioner has suppressed the relevant facts from the Lower Court is also decided in favour of the appellant. On perusal of the facts on the file of Lower Court and this Court it is found that the petition filed by Gram Panchayat under Section 11 of Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act 1961 in para no.7, the Director Land Records Punjab who has decided on 30.07.2014 find mention. On perusal of the facts on the file of Lower Court and this Court it is found that the petition filed by Gram Panchayat under Section 11 of Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act 1961 in para no.7, the Director Land Records Punjab who has decided on 30.07.2014 find mention. Besides this, the Eviction Petition filed by Gram Panchayat against the respondents regarding the land in dispute was accepted on 03.03.2982 and the appeal against that order filed by respondents were dismissed on 01.06.1984. The writ Petition No. 3381 of 1984 filed by respondent was accepted on 26.04.2010 and case was remanded to the Collector for re-decision. After that vide order dated 18.08.2010 (Ex.R13), District Development & Panchayat Officer Exercising the powers of Collector, Sangrur had decided in favour of Gram Panchayat and eviction order was passed against the respondents. The respondents have not challenged those orders till today. This order dated 18.08.2010 which was passed against the respondents, it was in their knowledge. From the above facts, it is proved that the order dated 18.08.2010 was within the knowledge of respondents and regarding order dated 30.07.2014 the appellant has mentioned in para no.7 of his petition and this is not proved that the appellant has suppressed any fact from this Court. Therefore, issue no.3 is decided in favour of Gram Panchayat appellant. x x x x" 3. Resultantly, the appellate authority concerned, on the ground of suppression of the materials (supra) from the Collector concerned, who exercised jurisdiction on a petition filed under Section 11 of the Act of 1961 but at the instance of the Gram Panchayat concerned, thus ultimately concluded that the effect of the said suppression, is that, thereby the Gram Panchayat concerned, was able to successfully prove its claim for a declaratory title rather becoming made in respect of the disputed khasra number (supra). 4. For the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the above made premise in the impugned annexure, is an ill-informed premise, and, is liable to be rejected. Resultantly, this Court finds merit in the instant petition, and, is constrained to allow it. 5. 4. For the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the above made premise in the impugned annexure, is an ill-informed premise, and, is liable to be rejected. Resultantly, this Court finds merit in the instant petition, and, is constrained to allow it. 5. Initially, for the reason, that even if there was respectively a binding, and, conclusive order rendered purportedly in respect of the disputed land by the competent authority concerned, but the said order of eviction appears not to have been executed, as such, by the decree holder concerned, through its instituting an execution petition before the learned Executing Court concerned. Contrarily, the Gram Panchayat concerned, proceeded to institute a declaratory suit before the Collector concerned, but thereons Annexure P-7 became rendered, wherebys the espoused declaratory relief became declined to the Gram Panchayat concerned. The effect of non-execution of the binding, and, conclusive order of eviction, if any, which became passed purportedly in respect of the disputed khasra number, is that, therebys the Gram Panchayat concerned, was under a bewilderment vis-a-vis its entitlement to secure an efficacious execution of the verdict of eviction, as became passed purportedly in respect of the disputed khasra number. To erase the said bewilderment or confusion appertaining to the said verdict of eviction relating to the disputed khasra number, and/or whether there was a valid title inhering in respect thereof, in favour of the Gram Panchayat concerned, thus it chose to institute a declaratory suit before the Collector concerned. If so, there appears to be no impact at all upon any purported suppression being made by the present petitioners in respect of the binding, and, conclusive decree of eviction becoming rendered rather purportedly in respect of the disputed khasra number. Contrarily, it appears, that the Gram Panchayat concerned, appears to suppress the makings of a binding verdict Annexure P-4, by the Director of Consolidations, wherebys a clerical error or mistake arising from the erroneous assigning of musteel No. 30 to the disputed khasra number, thus became corrected. The said annexure was required to be challenged at the instance of the Gram Panchayat concerned, through its instituting a writ petition before this Court. However, the said annexure remained unchallenged, therebys it acquires a binding, and, conclusive effect. 6. The said annexure was required to be challenged at the instance of the Gram Panchayat concerned, through its instituting a writ petition before this Court. However, the said annexure remained unchallenged, therebys it acquires a binding, and, conclusive effect. 6. Resultantly, therebys it was required to be enforced, on production thereof before the revenue authorities concerned, for therebys the updation of records taking place wherebys, the revenue entry declaring the Gram Panchayat concerned, to be the owner of the disputed khasra number, becoming ultimately substituted or altered, thus therebys rather reflecting the predecessors-in- interest of the petitioners to be the owner thereof. 7. Be that as it may, even if the said annexure remained unchallenged at the instance of the Gram Panchayat concerned, yet a civil suit cast under Section 11 of the Act of 1961, was maintainable, but only on the limited ground, that the makings of Annexure P-4, was a result of active suppression or fraud becoming practiced by the predecessors-in-interest of the present petitioners, thus before the Director, Consolidations. However, the suit filed petition under Section 11 of the Act of 1961, appears to not become premised on the said ground, nor also the other permissible ground became raised in the said civil suit, as relating to the jurisdiction exercised under section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act of 1948'), by the Director, Consolidations, being an ill-exercised jurisdiction, thus on the ground, that he had proceeded to make an invalid interference with the finalized scheme of consolidation, and/or had thereby untenably determined a disputed question of title. If the said ground of Annexure P-4 being infected with the vice of coram non judice was taken or also became proven, thereby the Collector concerned, and, or the appellate authority concerned, could proceed to rather invalidate Annexure P-4. However, no pleadings appear to become raised in the claim petition, reared by the Gram Panchayat concerned, whereby it became agitated that Annexure P-4 became infected with the vice of coram non judice. Resultantly, the abandonment of the above permissible plea, rather garners a conclusion from this Court, that Annexure P-4 was made by the Director, Consolidations on his validly exercising jurisdiction, relating to his therebys undoing only arithmetical or clerical mistakes, as related to his therebys undoing, the wrong assignment of musteel number to the disputed khasra number (supra). Resultantly, the abandonment of the above permissible plea, rather garners a conclusion from this Court, that Annexure P-4 was made by the Director, Consolidations on his validly exercising jurisdiction, relating to his therebys undoing only arithmetical or clerical mistakes, as related to his therebys undoing, the wrong assignment of musteel number to the disputed khasra number (supra). 8. The upshot of the above discussion, is that, rather than the verdict of eviction acquiring conclusivity, and/or the said verdict of eviction becoming suppressed by the respondent concerned, in the civil suit filed before the Collector concerned, rather the decree holder-Gram Panchayat concerned, through its waiving its right to make a challenge to Annexure P- 4, thus acquiesced to its validity, besides thereby foisted conclusivity to Annexure P-4. Resultantly, thereby reverence was required to be meted to Annexure P-4 rather than its legal import becoming scuttled, as untenably became done by the appellate authority concerned, thus on a mis-propounded ground that there was suppression at the instance of the respondent concerned, of the verdict of eviction, especially when the said verdict did not result in an execution petition becoming filed, rather the Gram Panchayat concerned, instituting a declaratory suit, thereby it but accepted, that there was a cloud in respect of title inhering in it, in respect of the disputed khasra number, and, for erasing the said cloud of doubt, it did choose to institute a declaratory suit before the authority concerned. 9. Consequently, this Court finds merit in the instant petition. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. 10. Pending application(s), if any, is/are also disposed of.