-1- Civil Revision No.1870 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1870 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:
22. 08.2013 The Gram Panchayat of village Lathron ....Petitioner Versus Sadhu Ram (died) through LRs and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH 1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?.
2) To be referred to the Reporters or No.?.
3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?.
Present: - Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, Sr.Advocate, with Mr.Kartik Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.V.K.Jindal, Advocate, for respondents No.1(ii to iv).***** PARAMJEET SINGH, J.
(ORAL) Instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 1.2.2011 (Annexure P- 5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division).Karnal, whereby the application moved by the petitioner for restoration of the application dated 4.8.2005 (dismissed in default on 2.8.2007) for setting aside ex parte order dated 20.11.2004, has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the property in question is a public property and gram panchayat is owning and managing the same.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that suit is barred under the provisions of Punjab Singh Ravinder 2013.08.30 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -2- Civil Revision No.1870 of 2011 Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat of Village Naulakha versus Ujagar Singh, 2000(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 749 to contend that public institution cannot be allowed to be jeopardised by persons who at an earlier point of time, represented it and who were expected to effectively defend public interest and community property.
Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the restoration and submitted that application has been filed after more than two yeaRs.As such no grounds have been mentioned as to why there is delay in filing the present revision.
I have considered the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties.
Be that as it may, fact remains that the property belongs to the gram panchayat regarding which declaration is being sought.
Otherwise also, no prejudice will be caused to the respondent/plaintiffs if the application dated 4.8.2005 for setting aside ex parte order dated 20.11.2004, is restored.
It may be noticed here that sometimes persons at the helm of affairs of the village are not interested in pursuing the proceedings for some soft corners towards certain persons.
In these circumstances the applications are not filed.
Otherwise also it is the duty of the court as well as the officials relating to the department of panchayat that they should have a watch on such things.
Singh Ravinder 2013.08.30 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -3- Civil Revision No.1870 of 2011 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat of Village Naulakha versus Ujagar Singh (supra) has held as under: - “9.
Further property of a public institution cannot be allowed to be jeopardised by persons who, at an earlier point of time, might have represented it and who were expected to effectively defend public interest and community property.
Persons representing public bodies are expected to discharge their functions faithfully and in keeping with the trust reposed in them.”
In these circumstances, present petition is allowed.
Application dated 4.8.2005 is restored to its original number.
However, for the inconvenience caused to the respondents in terms of loss of time, they will be compensated by way of costs which are assessed at Rs.20,000/-.
Copy of this order be sent to the Director, Panchayats, Haryana, who should appoint an official who will have a constant watch on the properties of the gram panchayat and will ensure that no such properties are swindled away by unscrupulous persons in connivance with the persons in whom they may be interested.
This fact be also brought to the notice of Chief Secretary, Haryana.
A monitoring cell in the department should be constituted so that appropriate measures may be taken in this regard.
(Paramjeet Singh) Judge August 22, 2013 R.S.Singh Ravinder 2013.08.30 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh