Gram Sabha Naya Shehar vs Niranjan Singh

Surinder Singh, J.

A suit was filed by Niranjan Singh and his son Kirpal Singh (respondent) against the Gram Panchayat Naya Shehar (appellant) and others for a permanent injunction that the appellant be restrained from taking possession or interfering with the respondent''s possession of a vacant site in the village and for quashing the orders of the Gram Panchayat dated December 30, 1961 as also the order of Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh, dated June 3, 1962, relating to an alleged encroachment on the said property. The claim of the respondents in the suit was that the joint Gram Panchayat of the two villages, i.e., Naya Shehar and Badala served a notice for the removal of some encroachment on the disputed site but no action in regard to this notice was taken by the Gram Panchayat. In fact, this notice was ordered to be filed. Subsequently, the Gram Panchayat, Naya Shehar, purporting to act under section 21 of the Gram Panchayat Act, imposed a fine upon the respondents. A revision was filed against the order of the Gram Panchayat, but this was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh. The respondents, therefore, asked for the necessary relief of injunction.

The appellant contested the suit with various objections both legal as well as on facts. The competence of the Civil Court to adjudicate upon the matter decided by the Panchayat was also challenged. The contentious points which were incorporated in the issues are as follows :

(1) Whether the plaintiffs are the owners of the site in dispute ?

(2) Whether the orders impugned in this suit can be challenged in a Civil Court. If so, are they illegal, void and inoperative ?

(3) Whether a notice as provided for under section 108, Gram Panchayat Act, is necessary; if so to what effect ?

(4) Relief.

The findings on all the issues went in favour of the respondents and their suit was, therefore decreed in terms of the prayer made by them. The Gram Panchayat appealed but without success. They have, however, tried their luck again in the present second appeal.

Mr. Puran Chand learned counsel for the appellant has focussed the beam on the solitary point which according to him, has not been properly appreciated by the Courts below. The argument is that the order of the Gram Panchayat dated December 30, 1961 which has been impugned by the respondents, was passed by the Panchayat in its judicial capacity and in view of the provisions of section 104(2) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952, the civil Court was debarred from questioning any act done by the Gram Panchayat in the discharge of its duties under the Act. For facility of reference, section 104(2) may be reproduced as follows :

"(1) x x x x x x

(2) No civil or revenue suit or proceeding shall lie against any Gram Panchayat in respect of any act done in the discharge of any of its duties imposed under this Act."

A bare perusal of the provision extracted above would show that the argument of the learned counsel cannot be sustained. Before invoking immunity under the said provision, a Gram Panchayat is called upon to show that the act done by it was within the scope of its jurisdiction under the Act. The mere fact that a notice was issued by the Gram Panchayat under section 21 of the Act calling upon the respondents to remove some encroachment would not, per se prove that the land on which the encroachment is said to have been made had vested in the Gram Panchayat or was a public place. The proper forum of adjudication, when the title to such a property is disputed, is the civil Court and a suit filed specifically for this purpose can certainly be not barred by invoking the provisions of section 104(2) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952. The two Courts below after appreciating the evidence produced by the parties have come to a concurrent finding on issue No. 1 relating to the ownership of the site, in favour of the respondents. This finding of fact cannot be impugned in this Court in second appeal.

The appeal must fail and it is ordered accordingly. There will, however, be no order as to costs in this appeal.