Praveen Kumar and anr. Vs. District Collector and anr. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/764851
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided OnMay-11-2009
Judge Sangeet Lodha, J.
Reported in2009(3)WLN135
AppellantPraveen Kumar and anr.
RespondentDistrict Collector and anr.
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
civil procedure code, 1908 - order 39 rule 2a--rajasthan panchayat act, 1953--section 27a--applicability of order 39 rule 2a--district collector exercising the revisional power under section 27a act of 1953 as delegate of state government is not a court and the provisions of order 39 rule 2a has no application in such proceedings pending before him. - sangeet lodha, j.1. this writ petition is directed against order dt. 06.07.1996 passed by the district collector, udaipur whereby invoking the power under order xxxix rule 2a of the civil procedure code, 1908 (in short 'cpc' hereinafter) the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of rs. 500/- as compensation to the respondent no. 2 for alleged disobedience of stay order dt. 24.02.1996 passed by the district collector, udaipur in the proceedings under section 27a of the rajasthan panchayat act, 1953 (in short 'the act of 1953' hereinafter) directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding the land in question.2. in revenue village sukher, some abadi plots were auctioned by gram panchayat, bhuvana. one shri shyam lal s/o mohan lal chitara purchased a plot on 06.02.1983 for consideration of rs. 7,500/-. shri shyam lal sold the said plot to the petitioner herein by way of registered sale deed. the respondent no. 2 filed a complaint before the district collector, udaipur stating therein that the plot in question forms part of the public way, therefore, the allotment made deserved to be cancelled. the complaint was registered by the district collector, udaipur as revision petition under section 27 a of the act of 1953 read with rule 272 of rajasthan panchayat general rules, 1961. on 24.02.1996, the district collector issued an ex parte interim order addressed to the tehsildar, girwa directed him to ensure that status quo is maintained by both the parties with regard to the disputed plot.3. the respondent no. 2 filed an application under order xxxix rule 2a read with 151 cpc before the district collector stating therein that in violation of the stay order granted the petitioners herein have raised construction over the plot in question and the public way has been closed by putting a gate over there. the application was contested by the petitioner herein by filing a reply thereto. the allegations contained in the application were denied and an objection was raised that the application preferred under order xxxix rule 2a is not maintainable.4. after due consideration of the rival submissions, the district collector found the petitioners guilty of violation of the interim order and accordingly, invoking the power under order xxxix rule 2 a the petitioners have been directed to pay a sum of rs. 500/- as compensation to the respondent no. 2. hence, this petition.5. it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the collector functioning under the act of 1953 or rajasthan panchayati raj act, 1994 is not a court and there is no order under order xxxix rules 1 and 2 of cpc, therefore, the district collector had no jurisdiction to invoke the power under order xxxix rule 2a cpc.6. indisputably, temporary injunction is a judicial process issued by the court of competent jurisdiction during the pendency of the suit whereby the party to the suit is required to do or refrain from doing any particular act. the district collector exercising the revisional power under section 27a of the act of 1953 as delegate of the state government is not a court and the provisions of order xxxix rules 1 and 2 has no application in such proceedings pending before him . thus, the order impugned passed by the district collector invoking the power under order xxxix rule 2a for alleged disobedience of stay order dt. 24.02.1996 passed by him in the revision proceedings under section 27a of the act of 1953 is ex facie without jurisdiction.7. in the result, the writ petition succeeds, it is hereby allowed. the order impugned dt. 06.07.1996 is quashed. no order as to costs.
Judgment:

Sangeet Lodha, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against order dt. 06.07.1996 passed by the District Collector, Udaipur whereby invoking the power under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (in short 'CPC' hereinafter) the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- as compensation to the respondent No. 2 for alleged disobedience of stay order dt. 24.02.1996 passed by the District Collector, Udaipur in the proceedings under Section 27A of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (in short 'the Act of 1953' hereinafter) directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding the land in question.

2. In revenue village Sukher, some abadi plots were auctioned by Gram Panchayat, Bhuvana. One Shri Shyam Lal S/o Mohan Lal Chitara purchased a plot on 06.02.1983 for consideration of Rs. 7,500/-. Shri Shyam Lal sold the said plot to the petitioner herein by way of registered sale deed. The respondent No. 2 filed a complaint before the District Collector, Udaipur stating therein that the plot in question forms part of the public way, therefore, the allotment made deserved to be cancelled. The complaint was registered by the District Collector, Udaipur as revision petition under Section 27 A of the Act of 1953 read with Rule 272 of Rajasthan Panchayat General Rules, 1961. On 24.02.1996, the District Collector issued an ex parte interim order addressed to the Tehsildar, Girwa directed him to ensure that status quo is maintained by both the parties with regard to the disputed plot.

3. The respondent No. 2 filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A read with 151 CPC before the District Collector stating therein that in violation of the stay order granted the petitioners herein have raised construction over the plot in question and the public way has been closed by putting a gate over there. The application was contested by the petitioner herein by filing a reply thereto. The allegations contained in the application were denied and an objection was raised that the application preferred under Order XXXIX Rule 2A is not maintainable.

4. After due consideration of the rival submissions, the District Collector found the petitioners guilty of violation of the interim order and accordingly, invoking the power under Order XXXIX Rule 2 A the petitioners have been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- as compensation to the respondent No. 2. Hence, this petition.

5. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Collector functioning under the Act of 1953 or Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 is not a Court and there is no order under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, therefore, the District Collector had no jurisdiction to invoke the power under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC.

6. Indisputably, temporary injunction is a judicial process issued by the Court of competent jurisdiction during the pendency of the suit whereby the party to the suit is required to do or refrain from doing any particular Act. The District Collector exercising the revisional power under Section 27A of the Act of 1953 as delegate of the State Government is not a Court and the provisions of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 has no application in such proceedings pending before him . Thus, the order impugned passed by the District Collector invoking the power under Order XXXIX Rule 2A for alleged disobedience of stay order dt. 24.02.1996 passed by him in the revision proceedings under Section 27A of the Act of 1953 is ex facie without jurisdiction.

7. In the result, the writ petition succeeds, it is hereby allowed. The order impugned dt. 06.07.1996 is quashed. No order as to costs.