Matu Ram vs Gram Panchayat Mehanda

A.S. Bains, J.

This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffappellant against the defendantrespondents.

It is alleged in the plaint that Gram Panchayat, Mehenda, started some proceedings for the removal of the plaintiff''s bara. Subsequently these proceedings were transferred from Gram Panchayat, Mehenda, to Gram Panchayat, Barsi on the application of the plaintiff by the Magistrate 1st \\class, and the Gram Panchayat, Barsi, passed a resolution on March 22, 1962 and held that the plaintiff''s possession over the land in dispute was illegal and that he has encroached upon the panchayat land and directed the plaintiff to remove the encroachment within one month. In the order it was further provided that in case the plaintiff fails to remove the encroachment within one month, then he will be liable to pay recurring fine at the rate of Re. 1/ per day. Dissatisfied by the resolution of the Gram Panchayat, a suit was filed by Matu Ram plaintiff for declaration that the impugned resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat was illegal, without jurisdiction and ultra vires. This suit was contested by the defendants and parties contested on the followed issues :

Is the site in dispute attached to a common pond and used for public purpose ?

Were the proceedings taken by the defendants not legal and taken in bad faith ?

In case of proof of issues Nos. 1 and 2, is the plaintiff the owner in possession of this land ?

Can the plaintiff not sue ?

Two additional issues were also framed as under :

1A. Whether the notice under section 108 of the Gram Panchayat Act is essential and the suit is not maintainable without this notice ?

2A Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged in para 2 of the preliminary objections ?

The trial Court decided issues Nos. 1A and 2A against the defendant; issues Nos. 1 and 3 against the plaintiff and issues Nos. 2 and 4 in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the plaintiff''s suit.

Dissatisfied, by the judgment and decree of the trial Court Gram Panchayat Mehenda, filed an appeal before the learned Senior Sub Judge, who partly accepted the appeal and decreed the suit of the plaintiff only to the extent that the Panchayat had no jurisdiction to pass a recurring fine and to that extent the impugned resolution was bad. Dissatisfied by the judgment and decree of the Senior Sub Judge, Matu Ram plaintiff has filed this second appeal.

I have gone minutely into the merits of this case and find that both the Courts below have gone wrong in entertaining a suit like this. The Panchayat has a right to pass the resolution imposing the penalty for disobedience to its order under sections 21 and 23 of the Gram Panchayat Act, 1952; although it has no right to pass a prospective recurring fine in view of a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Naurang Lal v. The Gram Panchayat of village Gujarwas, 1964 P.L.R. 28, yet it can pass an order directing any party, who has encroached upon the panchayat land, to remove the encroachment. Against this, remedy of revision is provided under Section 51 of the Gram Panchayat Act. But the plaintiffappellant did not avail of that remedy. The jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred under the Act. I fail to understand as to how a civil suit lies in such a situation. Punjab Gram Panchayat Act is a selfcontained Code. The Panchayats are given executive and judicial powers under the provisions of this Act and against those orders, the remedy is also provided for. If any order is passed by the Panchayat exercising the criminal jurisdiction, the remedy lies with the Chief Judicial Magistrate and in civil matter with the District Judge. The jurisdiction of the civil Court is absolutely barred. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.