Babu Ram vs Commissioner Patiala Division

I.S. Tiwana, J. (Oral)

The petitioner impugns the original and the appellate orders the Collector and the Commissioner dated November 30, 1977, and February 19, 1979, respectively whereby his application under section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, (for short, the Act) has been dismissed. The primary grouse of the petitioner is that he was not allowed any fair and proper opportunity to lead his evidence in support of his claim. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, I find that the stand of the petitioner is wholly sustainable. In order to support his abovenoted plea, the petitioner has alleged in paragraphs 6 to 13 of his petition as follows:

"6. That on 30.9.1977 respondent No. 3 (the Gram Panchayat) submitted its reply to the section 11 petition. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 (the Collector without framing any issue in the case despite a request to that effect having been made by the petitioner''s counsel, adjourned the case to 11.10.1977 for recording the evidence of the parties, though it was insisted on behalf of the petitioner that his evidence should be recorded first. Anyhow, the case then stood posted for 11.10.1977 for the recording of the parties'' evidence.

That 1.10.1977 and 2.10.1977 being Saturday and Sunday respectively, the petitioner moved an application on 3.10.1977 for summoning the petitioner''s witness through the assistance of the Court. On this application respondent No.2 passed an order on 4.10.1977 thereby directing the deposit of the diet money in the Court and further saddling the petitioner''s counsel with the personal responsibility of getting the witnesses served and also producing them in the Court on 11.10.1977. A copy of the order is attached as Annexure P.3.

That on 11.10.1977 respondent No. 2 was not available on duty in his Court room for judicial work right upto 3.30 p.m. and it was also rumoured that the possibility of his arrival and doing the Court work was very remote. Since the petitioner''s undersigned counsel Shri Sunder Lal of Patiala was to attend the Rajpura Courts in connection with some other case and for that reason it was not possible for him to keep on waiting for the arrival of respondent No.2 he made a request to the Reader of the Court for adjourning the case to some other date. The counsel for the opposite party also agreed to this and consequently by mutual adjustment the case was adjourned by the Reader of the Court to 24.10.1977. After this adjournment the petitioner and his counsel Shri Sunder Lal Advocate Patiala left the Court campus to attend to their respective pieces of business.

That some time after the petitioner and his counsel had thus left the Court Campus, respondent No. 2 came to his Court room and on his directions the adjourned case was called on for hearing once over again. Since the petitioner and his counsel had already left the Court campus, as stated above, they could not respond to the call and in their consequential absence respondent No.2. after making a note in his order dated 11.10.1977 in respect of the absence of the petitioner and his counsel started recording the evidence of respondent No.2. Thus in their absence the statement of witnesses for the Gram Panchayat were recorded without there being any crossexamination on behalf of the petitioner. It is curious to note that respondent No. 2 did not choose to dismiss the petitioner''s case in default of appearance and after recording the statements of the R.Ws. again adjourned the case to 24.10.1977, that is to say that the same date to which the case had already been adjourned by the Reader of the Court mentioning in the order that the petitioner brings his evidence on 24.10.1977. A copy of the said order is attached as P.4.

That on the next day the petitioner''s undersigned counsel Sunder Lal Advocate Patiala, received a notice issued by respondent No. 2 asking the undersigned counsel to produce the petitioner''s evidence on 24.10.1977. On 24.10.1977 respondent No.2 was on leave and for that reason the case was adjourned to 11.11.1977 on which date the case was again adjourned to 23.11.1977 due to respondent No. 2 being busy in some other work.

That the petitioner was very much upset because of the attitude and manner of working of respondent No.2 and felt that he would not get evenhanded justice at the hands of respondent No.2. Consequently, the petitioner moved an application before the Commissioner for the transfer of his case from the file of respondent No.2. On this, the learned Commissioner called for the comments of respondent No.2 for 30.11.1977. Consequently, when the case was called on for hearing before respondent No.2 on 23.11.1977, the petitioner moved an application before respondent No. 2 requesting him to adjourn the case in view of the pendency of the transfer application on account of the petitioner''s faith in the impartiality of respondent No.2 having been shaken. In the said application the petitioner pointedly mentioned that the petitioner''s transfer application had already been fixed by the Commissioner for 30.11.1977 and as such respondent No.2 should not take any further proceedings in the case till the matter of transfer was decided. Despite this respondent No. 2 rejected the petitioner''s prayer and closed the petitioner''s evidence as per his orders passed that very day. It needs particular mention in the Court the petitioner for whose service and attendance in the Court the petitioner had already deposited the necessary process fee and diet money under the orders of the Court had not been served by the process serving agency of the Court while petitioner himself was totally unable to get his witnesses served. According to law the petitioner could not be saddled with the responsibility of serving and bringing his witnesses to the Court when he had already applied for the Court''s assistance by depositing their process fee and diet money in the Court. The copy of the order dated 23.11.1977 passed by respondent No. 2 closing the petitioner''s evidence is attached as Annexure P.5.

That on 24.11.1977 respondent No. 2 could not hear arguments due to the pressure of work and adjourned the case to 28.11.1977 for hearing arguments despite the insistence of the petitioner''s undersigned counsel Shri Sunder Lal, Advocate, that he would not be able to attend the Court on 28.11.1977 because of his professional engagement outside Patiala that day. But without paying attention thereto respondent No.2 adjourned the case to 28.11.1977. On this adjourned day of hearing the petitioner''s counsel could not come to the Court to address the arguments despite his best efforts to reach the Court in time. The Clerk of the petitioner''s counsel requested respondent No.2 to adjourn the case to some other date, but despite this respondent No.2 did not accommodate and without hearing the arguments that could be addressed on the basis of the existing state of the record, posted the case for the pronouncement of the order on 30.11.1977.

That thereafter on 30.11.1977, respondent No.2 pronounced the final order in the case thereby dismissing the petitioner''s petition under section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act. A copy of the said order is attached herewith and marked as Annexure P.6 to this petition. The petitioner''s appeal against the order of respondent No.2 was also dismissed by the Commissioner, respondent No. 1 as per his order dated 19.2.1979, a copy whereof is attached herewith and marked as Annexure P.7 to the petition".

Respondent No.3, the Gram Panchayat, which is directly affected and should normally be interested in the result of this case has not chosen to contest the abovenoted stand of the petitioner by filing any written statement. This is in spite of the fact that four repeated adjournments were granted to it by the Motion Bench for the said purpose. It probably found the impugned order indefensible.

The only written statement has been filed by the Collector i.e. respondent No.2 and he controverts the stand of the petitioner in the following manner:

"6. It is wrong and denied. Both the parties were asked on 30.9.1977 to produce their respective evidence on 11.10.1977.

Admitted.

It is wrong and denied.

It is wrong and denied.

First part of the para is admitted and the rest of the para is denied.

Denied.

12 First part of the para is admitted and second para about the date 28.11.77 is denied.

Admitted."

The abovenoted detailed reference to the relevant parts of the pleadings clearly brings it out that the Collector if not a judicial authority then at least even as a quasijudicial authority has left much to be desired on his part. He appears to have proceeded to dispose of the case in a dictatorial or at least in an irrational manner and has thus prejudiced the civil rights of the petitioner completely. Equally colourless appears to be the order of the Commissioner. But for its prolixity and rambling narration of facts and certain provisions of the statute, it hardly contains anything meaningful. She has not recorded any conclusion to show that either the explanation offered by the petitioner or his counsel for not adjourning or fixing the case for a particular date were not correct or genuine. She has just mentioned that the case was adjourned thrice by the Collector to enable the petitioner to lead his evidence. This factum of three adjournments was never in dispute. The case pleaded by the petitioner was that it was adjourned for the dates which did not suit his counsel for one reason or the other. The conduct of the Collector had even scared the petitioner to the extent that he moved an application for the transfer of his case from him (Collector), but the latter without waiting for the result of the transfer application proceeded to dispose of the case. I am, therefore, satisfied that in the instant case the petitioner was not granted any fair or adequate opportunity to lead evidence in support of his case.

For his foregoing reasons, I set aside both the orders Annexures P.6 and P.7 and send the case back to the Collector for deciding the case in accordance with law. The petitioner is allowed the costs of this litigation which I determine at Rs. 500/. The costs would be paid by the Collector i.e. Shri Niranjan Singh Hoonjan personally.