Gram Panchayat Umarpura Vs. Director Rural Development and Panchayat Department and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- sections 80 (2) & 89 & punjab motor vehicles rules, 1989, rules 85 & 80: [t.s. thakur, cj, jasbir singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. if a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed by the state or regional transport authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. thus,. in cases where the state or regional transport authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. - as per the counsel, the title suit under section 11 of the act was required to be decided by the collector like a civil suit and he could not have acted to decide the same in a summary manner. 6. once it is held that it is mandatory to decide application under section 11 of the act like a civil suit and that it is not a summary procedure, which is required to be followed, the question whether it has led to any prejudice or not is not to be seen.ranjit singh, j.1. petitioner-gram panchayat filed an application under section 11 of the punjab village common lands (regulation) act, 1961 (for short 'the act') on 21.5.1963 seeking ejectment of ruldu singh, father of respondent no. 3. this was allowed and the possession was also statedly taken on 7.8.1963. thereafter, respondent no. 3 filed a civil suit seeking declaration to the effect that he be declared owner in possession of the land in question. this matter reached upto this court. however, the suit was dismissed on the ground that the civil court would not have any jurisdiction to decide the suit. thereafter, respondent no. 3 filed a petition under section 11 of the act on 10.6.1997. this petition was accepted on 13.12.2004, against which the gram panchayat-petitioner filed an appeal raising some material points. the grievance is that these were not touched and the appeal filed by the gram panchayat was dismissed on 20.1.2006. these orders accordingly are impugned in the present writ petition.2. the counsel for the petitioner has made a limited grievance purely concerning the matter of procedure. as per the counsel, the title suit under section 11 of the act was required to be decided by the collector like a civil suit and he could not have acted to decide the same in a summary manner. as per the counsel, the collector was required to frame issues, allow the parties to lead evidence and then decide the same. in support of his submission, the counsel has drawn my attention to the case of nant singh v. joint director, panchayats, punjab 1993(3) p.l.r. 729. it has been held in this case that proceedings under section 11 of the punjab village common lands (regulation) act, 1961 are not summary in nature. it is further observed that the principles underlying various provisions have to be complied with for determining the question of title. it is also observed that it is mandatory for collector to frame necessary issues and record evidence of both parties and decide the matter in accordance with law.3. concededly, the procedure as envisaged and as laid down by this court in nant singh's case (supra) was not followed. the submission by the counsel for respondent no. 3 that though the issues were not framed but will not make any substantial difference as the plaint in this case was returned from the civil court and parties were not allowed to lead evidence. accordingly, the counsel would submit that it will not make any substantial difference and that no prejudice is seen to have been caused to the petitioner. he would further submit that at no stage, the petitioner-gram panchayat sought framing of issues or objected to procedure being followed.4. the counsel would submit that the gram panchayat cannot be heard to make a grievance in this regard at this stage.5. i have considered the rival contentions made by the counsel for the parties.6. once it is held that it is mandatory to decide application under section 11 of the act like a civil suit and that it is not a summary procedure, which is required to be followed, the question whether it has led to any prejudice or not is not to be seen. if the requirement under statute is held to be mandatory, it must be followed.7. the application filed under section 11 of the act could not have been disposed of summarily. even if the evidence was to be recorded, the same was to be on the issues, which were never framed. the procedure as envisaged and as approved by this court in nant singh's case (supra) was not followed. the impugned orders, as such, cannot be sustained. these are set-aside. the parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the collector on 3.7.2009, who shall follow the procedure as prescribed under law. the parties would be at liberty to seek any interim relief from the collector.8. the present writ petition is accordingly disposed of.