Allowed

Dalip Singh v. Director Rural Development

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Nov 2008CWP/10003/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil writ petition, the High Court, relying on Bachna v Gram Panchayat, set aside impugned orders because the Collector disposed of a suit under Section 11 of the Village Common Lands Act via summary proceedings instead of framing issues and recording findings. Directions were issued for remanding the matter to a valid authority for proper adjudication within a time limit.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside. Suit remanded with directions to frame issues, allow evidence, and dispose within one year; parties to appear before the Deputy Director.

Dalip Singh Vs Director Rural… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No. 10003 of 2005 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶3

CHANDIGARH

¶4

-.-

¶5

Civil Writ Petition No. 10003 of 2005 Date of decision: 12.11.2008

Dalip Singh

........Petitioner

Versus

Director Rural Development and panchayats Punjab and others

¶10

. ......Respondent(s)

¶11

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.S.Khehar Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶12

-.-

¶13

Present: Mr. Sarjit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. S S Brar, Adocate for the petitioner

¶14

Mr. Parveen Chander Goyal, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No. 1

¶15

Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for respondent No. 2

¶16

-.-

¶17

J.S.Khehar, J. (Oral)

¶18

Learned counsel for the rival parties are agreed, that in view of the decision rendered by this Court in 'Bachna v Gram Panchayat of Village Mehmoodpur Jattan, Tehsil and District Patiala and others' , 2005 (3) PLR 576, while deciding the question of title in a suit filed under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Village Common lands Act), it was incumbent

¶19

Civil Writ Petition No. 10003 of 2005 2

¶20

for the Collector, to frame issues, allow the parties to lead evidence in respect of the respective issues, and then record specific finding on each of the issues. Whereas in the present controversy, the aforesaid procedure was not adopted, and that, the Collector held summary proceedings even for disposing the suit under Section 11 of the Village Common Lands Act.

¶21

In view of the above, learned counsel for the rival parties are agreed, that the suit filed by the petitioner should be remanded back to the Collector, Patiala with a direction to him to frame issues on the basis of the pleadings before him, and thereafter afford an opportunity to the rival parties to lead their evidence, and then record finding(s).

¶22

In view of the above, the parties are directed to appear before the Divisional Deputy Director Rural Development and Panchayats (exercising the powers of the Collector), Patiala, on 10.12.2008, who shall frame the issues in respect of the present controversy within one month from the parties appearing before him, thereafter the petitioner shall be permitted to lead evidence by affording the petitioner two effective opportunities so as to conclude the evidence of the petitioner, within three months (as far as possible). Likewise, the Gram Panchayat will be afforded two effective opportunities, to lead its evidence. The evidence of the Gram Panchayat will also be concluded, within a period of three months (as far as possible). The issue of title raised by the petitioner in the suit under Section 11 of the Village Common Lands Act, shall be disposed of, preferably within a period of nine months, but not beyond a period of one year (from the date when the parties appear before the Collector).

¶23

Civil Writ Petition No. 10003 of 2005 3

¶24

In view of the above, it necessarily follows, that the impugned orders passed by the Collector, Patiala, as well as, the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, are hereby set aside.

¶25

Disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶26

[J.S.Khehar] Judge [Nirmaljit Kaur] Judge

¶27

November 12, 2008 mohan

Dalip Singh v. Director Rural Development

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dalip Singh v. Director Rural Development

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Phool Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

R K Suneja and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Mohinder Pal Vs State of Pb. & Ors.

M/S Baba Paramjeet Singh and Co. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Harbkash Singh & Anr. Vs Superintending Canal Officer & Ors.

Mahender Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.