BachnA. Vs. Director; Rural Development; Panchayats; Punjab and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/911957
SubjectCivilProperty
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJan-30-2011
Case NumberCivil Writ Petition No.1704 of 2011
JudgeAJAI LAMBA, J.
ActsPunjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 - Section 7
AppellantBachnA.
RespondentDirector; Rural Development; Panchayats; Punjab and ors.
Advocates:Mr. I.D. Singla, Adv.
Cases ReferredBachna vs. The Joint Director Panchayat
Excerpt:
[mr. justice huluvadi.g.ramesh,j.] these writ petitions are filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india praying to quash the revisional order passed by commissioner of commercial taxes under section 8-d of ket act, 1958 dated 5.8.2010 vide annexure-d, amd the order of even number dated 22.9.2010 passed under section 6-c of the said act in the rectification application filed by the petitioner vide annexure-e as the orders passed without jurisdiction under section 8-d of ket act, 1958 ultra vires definition of admission' in section 2(a) of ket act, 1958 and as opposed to principles of harmonious construction.1. the only contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that orders passed by the authorities under the punjab village common lands (regulations) act, 1961 (for short, 'the act') are illegal, in so much as, while earlier application under section 7 of the act was pending adjudication, a second application has been filed on which ejectment has been ordered.2. i have considered the contention of learned counsel.3. on going through the order passed by the collector/ divisional deputy commissioner, rural development & panchayat, patiala, i find that the issue as raised before this court was raised before that authority.4. it transpires that the matter was carried upto the high court. this court directed the collector to take evidence and decide the matter afresh. in these circumstances, an application had been filed by the respondent which has been termed as a second application.5. perusal of application which is stated to have been filed afresh indicates that reference to the high court proceedings has been given in the following terms:-"4. that the hon'ble punjab and haryana high court vide its order dated 6.7.1995 accepted the writ petition and directed the parties to appears before the court of collector and after giving fresh opportunities for adducing the evidence in support of their respective contentions and the case be decided according to law."6. alongwith the petition, copy of order dated 6.7.1005 passed by this court in civil writ petition no.2854 of 1983 titled 'bachna vs. the joint director panchayat, punjab & others' has been placed on record as annexure p-8. operative part of the decision of this court reads as under:-"it would not be fair to the petitioner if these documents are taken into consideration as these documents had not been placed before the authorities below and the petitioner had no opportunity to rebut the cwp no.1704 of 2011 [3] same. facts of each case can vary and the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the gram panchayat may not be applicable to the facts of the present case and the petitioner in all fairness has to be granted a fair chance to protect his interests. the documents which were not placed before the authorities below and which have been placed on record now, under the circumstances cannot be taken into consideration. keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, i deem it proper to accept the writ petition and set aside the impugned orders annexures p-2 and p-3 and remit the case back to the prescribed authority under the act for re-deciding the dispute between the parties after affording adequate opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions. no costs.parties through their counsel, are directed to appear before the prescribed authority on 09.08.1995."7. it thus transpires that the matter was remitted back to the prescribed authority under the act for re-deciding the dispute between the parties after affording adequate opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions.8. gram panchayat, it appears that filed an application alongwith their contentions. the application filed in consequence of order passed by this court cannot be termed as fresh application for fresh adjudication. rather the matter had attained finality however, this court finding infirmity in the procedure, remitted the matter back for re-deciding the dispute. in such circumstances, the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is not available to him and has to be rejected.9. no argument has been addressed on cwp no.1704 of 2011 [4] facts or merits, and therefore, the orders passed by the authorities are hereby confirmed.10. no ground for interference in extraordinary writ jurisdiction is made out.11. the petition is dismissed.12. let a copy of this order be placed on the files of civil writ petition no.16693 of 2010 titled 'sadha singh & another vs. director, rural development & panchayats and others'; and civil writ petition no.18497 of 2010 titled 'lal singh & others vs. director, rural development & panchayats and others', which are scheduled to be heard on 8.2.2011.
Judgment:

1. The only contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that orders passed by the authorities under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') are illegal, in so much as, while earlier application under Section 7 of the Act was pending adjudication, a second application has been filed on which ejectment has been ordered.

2. I have considered the contention of learned counsel.

3. On going through the order passed by the Collector/ Divisional Deputy Commissioner, Rural Development & Panchayat, Patiala, I find that the issue as raised before this Court was raised before that authority.

4. It transpires that the matter was carried upto the High Court. This Court directed the Collector to take evidence and decide the matter afresh. In these circumstances, an application had been filed by the respondent which has been termed as a second application.

5. Perusal of application which is stated to have been filed afresh indicates that reference to the High Court proceedings has been given in the following terms:-

"4. That the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court vide its order dated 6.7.1995 accepted the writ petition and directed the parties to appears before the court of Collector and after giving fresh opportunities for adducing the evidence in support of their respective contentions and the case be decided according to law."

6. Alongwith the petition, copy of order dated 6.7.1005 passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.2854 of 1983 titled 'Bachna vs. The Joint Director Panchayat, Punjab & others' has been placed on record as Annexure P-8. Operative part of the decision of this Court reads as under:-

"It would not be fair to the petitioner if these documents are taken into consideration as these documents had not been placed before the authorities below and the petitioner had no opportunity to rebut the CWP No.1704 of 2011 [3] same. Facts of each case can vary and the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the Gram Panchayat may not be applicable to the facts of the present case and the petitioner in all fairness has to be granted a fair chance to protect his interests. The documents which were not placed before the authorities below and which have been placed on record now, under the circumstances cannot be taken into consideration. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, I deem it proper to accept the writ petition and set aside the impugned orders Annexures P-2 and P-3 and remit the case back to the prescribed authority under the Act for re-deciding the dispute between the parties after affording adequate opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions. No costs.

Parties through their counsel, are directed to appear before the prescribed authority on 09.08.1995."

7. It thus transpires that the matter was remitted back to the prescribed authority under the Act for re-deciding the dispute between the parties after affording adequate opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions.

8. Gram Panchayat, it appears that filed an application alongwith their contentions. The application filed in consequence of order passed by this Court cannot be termed as fresh application for fresh adjudication. Rather the matter had attained finality however, this Court finding infirmity in the procedure, remitted the matter back for re-deciding the dispute. In such circumstances, the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is not available to him and has to be rejected.

9. No argument has been addressed on CWP No.1704 of 2011 [4] facts or merits, and therefore, the orders passed by the authorities are hereby confirmed.

10. No ground for interference in extraordinary writ jurisdiction is made out.

11. The petition is dismissed.

12. Let a copy of this order be placed on the files of Civil Writ Petition No.16693 of 2010 titled 'Sadha Singh & another vs. Director, Rural Development & Panchayats and others'; and Civil Writ Petition No.18497 of 2010 titled 'Lal Singh & others vs. Director, Rural Development & panchayats and others', which are scheduled to be heard on 8.2.2011.