Ram Singh vs The Gram Panchayat of Village Wara Darraka

Bedi, J.—This petition by Ram Singh under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to set aside the order dated the 1st May, 1961 of Respondent No. I, the Gram Panchayat of village Wara Darraka, Tehsil Faridkot, and the order dated the 24th June 1962 of Respondent No. 2, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Faridkot, passed in revision.

in the petition it is alleged that the Petitioner is a displaced person from Bahawalpur State and was allotted land in village Warra Darraka in lieu of the land held by him in Pakistan. He had also been allotted houses No. 30(sic) /1, measuring 20 square yards and No. 33, measuring 379 square yards, in the abadi of village Wara Darraka, in lieu of the rural residential property left by him in Bahawalpur State, vide the order of the Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer, Faridkot, dated the 14th February 1961 {copy attached as annexure ''A'' to the petition). It is stated that he took over possession of these houses more than 12 years back and was continously in possession of the same since then. He roofed a portion of house No. 33 towards the western side, but on the complaint of Bishan Singh Respondent No. 3, the Gram Panchayat of his village held, vide its order dated the 1st May 1961, that the place over which the said roof had been constructed was a public thoroughfare and accordingly fined the Petitioner Rs. 25/- with a further direction to pay Ke.1/- per diem till the continuance of the offence. It was also ordered that the said structure should be pulled down by Respondent No. 1 itself at the cost of the Petitioner in case the latter did not voluntarily raise it to the ground. Against this order the Petitioner went up in revision which was dismissed on the 24th June 1962 by Respondent No. 2; hence the present petition.

It is alleged that the order of Respondent No. 1, dated the 1st May 1961, is ultra vires, illegal unjust and arbitrary for the various reasons given in the petition, inter alia, that Respondent No. 1 did not take the evidence of the Petitioner, rather it approached the whole case with a pre-conceived and biased mind because Jagir Singh Sarpanch, Kartar Singh and Harbans Singh Pinches had animus against him. Against Jagir Singh Sarpanch it is alleged that Kartar Singh, brother of the Petitioner, had instituted a suit u/s 12 of the Redemption of Mortgaged Lands Act against Bhola Singh, father of Jagir Singh Sarpanch, and others, and that litigation went up to the High Court. Again Budha Singh and Puran Singh of this village sold some land to Bhola singh above-mentioned, and the Petitioner and his brother Kartar Singh instituted a suit for pre-emption to pre-empt this sale. Then it was alleged that father of Jagir Singh Sarpanch had taken possession of house No 33/1 and made it a part of his own house by dismantling the intervening wall. Jagir Singh Sarpach wanted to get a passage for this house from house No. 33 owned by the Petitioner. Thus to grind his own axe, he had put forth Respondent No. 3 as the complainant and he himself acting as the judge had tried to harm the Petitioner in every conceivable way open to him.

Against Kartar Singh Panch it was alleged that the Petitioner had a criminal litigation with him. A copy of the judgment in that case forms annexure ''F'' to the petition, and is dated the 27th April, 1961.

Against Harbans Singh Panch it was stated that one Smt. Ram Kaur sold her land to Jagrup Singh and Mandar Singh son of Kora Singh. , Kora Singh is the real paternal uncle of Harbans Singh Panch. That sale attracted a suit on behalf of Hari Singh and Karam Singh, collaterals of Smt. Ram Kaur''s husband. The Petitioner gave evidence in that case against Mandar Singh and others above-mentioned.

It was further alleged by the Petitioner that he applied to Respondent No. 2 for the transfer of the case from Respondent No. 1. That application was sent to Respondent No. 1 on the 27th April 1961 for report. No report, however, was made by the Gram Panchayat on it, and instead it rushed through its decision dated the 1st May 1961 to forestall any order of transfer that Respondent No. 2 might ultimately make. The order therefore passed on the 1st May 1961 by the Panchayat was not based on any evidence whatsoever and was against the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner showed the order of allotment of the Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer dated the 14th February 1961, but no attention was paid to that.

Notice was issued to the Respondents. This petition came up before me on the 6th November 1962 when the counsel for the Respondents was directed to put in counter affidavits of the three persons, namely, Jagir Singh Sarpanch, Kartar Singh and Harbans Singh Panches to controvert the allegations of the Petitioner against them. Out of them Jagir Singh Sarpanch and Harbans Singh Panch have put in their counter affidavits but not Kartar Singh Panch. Jagir Singh Sarpanch in his affidavit has admitted the allegations of hostility levelled against him, and has tried to explain the same. According to him, he and his father had separate lands and also residences and, therefore, if the Petitioner had any allegation against his father that would not adversely affect him. Harbans Singh Panch has also given a pedigree-table along with his counter-affidavit which shows that Harbans Singh and Mandar Singh are first cousins. He has not denied that the Petitioner did give evidence against Mandar Singh but expressed ignorance.

The Petitioner''s counsel maintained that Section 67(1) of the Gram Panchayat Act (IV of 1953) lays down that "no member of a Panchayat shall take part in any case, suit or proceeding to which he or his employer, employee or partner in business or near relative is a party or in which any of them may be personally interested." He urged that from the resume of the facts given above it is clear that Jagir Singh Sarpanch and the two other Panches mentioned above, being obviously hostile to the Petitioner, did take part in the proceedings of the Gram Panchayat on the 1st may 1961. In support of his argument he also quoted Karma and Anr. v. State and Ors. (1962) 64 P.L.R. 1059. In view of the clear wording of the section and also the judgment of this Court quoted above, the order of the Gram Panchayat dated the 1st May 1961 must be quashed. I, therefore, accept this petition and set aside the orders dated the 1st May 1961 and the 24th June 1962 passed by Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, and remand the case back for a fresh decision. I, however, feel that it is desirable to transfer this case to some other Panchayat which after hearing the parties and giving opportunity to them to lead their evidence, if they so desire, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The case is sent to the District Magistrate, Bhatinda for entrusting the same to some other competent Panchayat in the neighbourhood. The other petition (Cr. M, 494 of 1962) filed by the Petitioner for staying the execution of the order of Respondent No. 1 dated the 1st May 1961, automatically stands disposed of.