Nant Singh Vs. Joint Director Panchayat - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....if state enters into a contract in consonance with article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a state or a statutory authority. for these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of article 299 was entered into between the parties. hence, if government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like larger public interest. the state, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. as a necessary corollary thereto state cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- consumer..........proceedings contemplated are not summary in nature. there can be no doubt or debate that the principles underlying various provisions of the code of civil procedure have to be complied with for the determination of the question of title. this has not been done.2. in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we allow the writ petition, set aside both the impugned orders of the collector as well as of the joint director referred to above and remand the case to the collector for a fresh decision according to law with the direction that he shall first re-enter the case against its original number and frame necessary issues and then after recording evidence of both the parties decide the matter afresh according to law within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties before him. the parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the collector, ropar for the purpose on 10.8.1993. a copy of this order be sent to the collector concerned for information and compliance. the writ petition stands disposed of in these terms.

Judgment:

ORDER

A.P. Chowdhri and H.S. Brar, JJ.

1. The dispute in this case relates to a portion of EFGD shown in red colour in the site plan (Ann.P.1) on the northern side of plot. According to the petitioner, the side piece of land is an adjunct of the main plot and is his private property which he purchased by a registered sale-deed dated 3.6.1956. The case of the Gram Panchayat respondent No. 2 on the other hand, is that the side land was portion of a public street going upto the house of Narain Singh, respondent No. 3. Further, according to the Gram Panchayat, the said public street goes further upto a School. The question of title with regard to the said piece of land was gone into by the Collector. By order dated 19.7.1990. (Annexure P.5), he held that the said piece of land was a part of the public path and as such vested in the Gram Panchayat. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Joint Director, Panchayats vide order dated 31.1.1992. (Annexure P.8). The grievance of the petitioner is that the question of title could not be decided in a summary manner and it was mandatory for the Collector to have framed necessary issues and to have recorded evidence of both the parties and recorded a finding thereon. It is not disputed that the issues were not framed by the Collector. The question arising for consideration is whether to what extent, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to the proceedings under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we entertain no doubt that the proceedings contemplated are not summary in nature. There can be no doubt or debate that the principles underlying various provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure have to be complied with for the determination of the question of title. This has not been done.

2. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we allow the writ petition, set aside both the impugned orders of the Collector as well as of the Joint Director referred to above and remand the case to the Collector for a fresh decision according to law with the direction that he shall first re-enter the case against its original number and frame necessary issues and then after recording evidence of both the parties decide the matter afresh according to law within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties before him. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Collector, Ropar for the purpose on 10.8.1993. A copy of this order be sent to the Collector concerned for information and compliance. The writ petition stands disposed of in these terms.