The Court set aside orders declaring private land as common land, holding that the Sarpanch defrauded the Court by favoring his close relatives. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
Impugned orders dated 22.12.1994 and 2.5.1996 set-aside; matter remanded to competent authority for fresh decision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4566 OF 2007 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 18, 2009
Gram Panchayat, Bathoi Khurd, Patiala
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
Joint Development Commissioner, Chandigarh and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
PRESENT: Mr. N.P.S. Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Parveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for the State.
Mr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr.Advocate with Mr. R. K. Chug, Advocate, for respondent Nos.4 to 7.
RANJIT SINGH, J.
Primary ground of challenge is that earlier Panchayat and
Sarpanch had connived with the private respondents, his near relations, which led to passing of the impugned orders. Strange would it be to notice that Sarpanch, Ajmer Singh, represented the
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4566 OF 2007 :{ 2 }:
Panchayat against respondent Nos.4 to 7, who were none other than his sons, brother and nephews. How could Panchayat had fairly defended the case, when Sarpanch, who contested on behalf of Panchayat, was so closely related to the contesting respondents. Result is there for everyone to see. The present Panchayat is rightly crying hoarse to seek setting-aside of these orders, ignoring the delay in its approach.
Respondent Nos.3 to 7 had filed an application under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Regulation Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) before respondent No.2 for declaring them owners in possession of the land in dispute measuring 204 kanals 7 marlas. At that time, Ajmer Singh son of Dalip Singh was the Sarpanch. He had so remained Sarpanch from June 1993 to 1998. Respondent No.3 is real brother of Ex.Sarpanch, Ajmer Singh and respondent Nos.4 and 7 are his sons. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 are his nephews, being sons of his brother. Respondent Nos.3 to 7 states that land in dispute was their possession prior to 26.1.1950 but the name of Gram Panchayat was wrongly entered into the revenue records. It is also pleaded that land in dispute was banjrakdim and they had spent thousand of rupees for making it cultivable.
On a notice being issued, Gram Panchayat appeared and pointed out that the land was being used for common purpose of the village and respondent Nos.3 to 7 have no right over the land. Collector vide his order dated 22.12.1994 declared that the land in dispute did not vest in Gram Panchayat and, thus, respondent Nos.3 to 7 were declared as owners of the land. Gram Panchayat instead of
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4566 OF 2007 :{ 3 }:
promptly filing appeal, did so with a delay of two months. This appears to have been done with purpose and design. After all, the Sarpanch was in contest against his own sons, whose interest would be dear to him like his sons. To explain this delay, it was stated that Ajmer Singh, Sarpanch was confined to bed for four months and, thus, was not in a position to move and that after having recovered, has approached the counsel for supply of the order and thereafter has filed this appeal. The appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat was dismissed being barred by limitation. It was also observed that the explanation given by the Panchayat was not convincing and it was doubtful if Sarpanch fell ill as no medical certificate was produced to explain the delay in a satisfactory manner. Another indication of connivance. This order was passed on 2.5.1996.
With a delay of more than one year, the Gram Panchayat then filed a Civil Writ Petition No.12269 of 1997 before this Court in the year 1997. Notice of motion was issued on 21.8.1997 and then the writ petition came up for hearing on 3.12.1997. On that day the Gram Panchayat withdrew the writ petition and the same was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh one for the same cause of action. Ajmer Singh was still the Sarpanch at that time. Though the liberty was given by the Court to file a petition on the same cause of action but thereafter Sarpanch did not file any writ petition. Ofcourse, this was to help private respondents who are his close relations and it is so urged by the petitioner that this was done just to give undue benefit to the respondents. Randhir Singh was elected as Sarpanch of Village and remained so from 1998 to 2003. He is also accused of having not watched the interest of the
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4566 OF 2007 :{ 4 }:
Gram Panchayat as he was party associate of Ex.Sarpanch Ajmer Singh. Present Panchayat, though took over in 2003 but came to know of this fraud, when respondent Nos.3 to 7 have sold some portion of this land. It thereafter collected documents and has now filed this writ petition on 22.3.2007.
These facts were noticed while issuing notice of motion by the Division Bench of this Court. The Bench had rightly ignored the delay on the part of Gram Panchayat to file this writ petition, which was explained on account of the reasons as afore-mentioned.
Reply on behalf of respondent Nos.4 to 7 has been filed. The respondents pray for dismissal of the writ petition on the ground that it is filed with a delay of 10 years. Respondents though claim that there is no explanation offered for the delay but have not disputed the facts disclosed in the writ petition. Respondents, thus, have not disputed the factual position as reflected in the writ petition and their relationship with the then Sarpanch when these orders were passed.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Mr.Anmol Rattan Sidhu, while appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 7, also pleaded the cause of persons who are subsequent purchasers of the land from respondent Nos.4 to 7. As per the counsel, an application for impleading the said persons as a party was filed. No such application is listed before the Court.
Could there be possibility of a fair trial and judgment, when interest of private respondents was dearer to the Sarpanch than the interest he was supposed to protect i.e. of Panchayat. It was certainly not possible. Rather the conduct of the Sarpanch would not leave any scope of doubt in this regard. These judgments and orders
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4566 OF 2007 :{ 5 }:
are clearly the outcome of connivance and mix up of the Sarpanch with his own sons, brother and nephews. Sarpanch, Ajmer Singh, could not be expected to be sincere in defending the interest of the Gram Panchayat and indeed he has committed fraud with the Courts in helping the respondents to get order in their favour.
The relationship between Sarpanch Ajmer Singh and the respondents No.4 to 7 is already noticed. Respondent Nos.4 and 7 are his sons and respondent Nos.5 and 6 are his nephews, being son of respondent No.3, who is his real brother. This contest accordingly can be termed as more than friendly being between close relations. A father could not have done anything to harm the interest of his own sons. Any benefit to his sons was to be in his benefit as well ultimately. If Ajmer Singh, Sarpanch, was fair, he should have disclosed his relationship with respondent Nos.4 to 7 and should have taken action to disassociate himself from defending this case by making some alternate arrangements. He (Ajmer Singh) rather acted to help serving the cause of his relatives as can be seen from his conduct. He did not file appeal in time. This appears to have been done purposely. The Collector, being unaware of the game that was being played, facilitated the cause of sarpanch by dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation. He could not have realised that in fact the Sarpanch was defrauding the Court, being closely related to the respondents. See the reasons given by the Sarpanch for delayed approach on his part. Said he that he was confined to bed for four months. He did not produce any medical record in support. How could he? Either he was not sick or he would purposely withhold it. Whatever may be the reason, the result is what he would have
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4566 OF 2007 :{ 6 }:
wanted. Appeal was dismissed being delayed.
See now the subsequent conduct of the Sarpanch. He made farcical efforts in filing a writ petition nearly after one year. His obvious aim appears to be to seek dismissal of the writ petition to show that he had taken action in the matter. Rather, it apparently was to bring finality to the order passed in favour of his close relatives. He must have been awaiting for dismissal of writ petition but was checkmated to the extent by this Court. This Court issued notice of motion in the writ petition. Now he saw his plans going haywire. Perhaps realising that the order which he was seeking to help his relatives, may be interfered with, he withdrew the petition. Still, it was with liberty to file a fresh one for the same cause of action. He never chose to file any writ petition thereafter. Sarpanch, who took over from him, also failed to protect the interest of the Panchayat. It is now only, that too after expiry of 10 years, when another Panchayat has taken over that this writ petition has been filed to challenge the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority. The case was allowed to drift by the conniving Sarpanch, who could never be expected to be fair and sincere in defending the Panchayat. Rather, he, being closely related to the respondents apparently had an interest to see that they succeeded in getting the order and, thus, is guilty of fraud on the Court. Any order in favour of his sons was to benefit him as well. This in itself would be a sufficient ground to interfere in the impugned orders. The conduct of the Sarpanch in facilitating respondent Nos.4 to 7 to get these orders and then to ensure that these acquire finality will in itself speak volumes. The Sarpanch has acted to perpetuate this illegality forever.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4566 OF 2007 :{ 7 }:
Connivance on his part is so much clear and apparent from the record. When he found that the High Court may interfere, he withdrew the writ petition, with liberty to file a fresh, but never filed any fresh petition.
Even otherwise, the Appellate order was not passed on merits and the appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat was dismissed only on the ground of limitation. It would be interesting to notice the observations of the Appellate Authority, when it noticed that delay could be condoned if the appellant was able to prove that no negligence was committed by him and his action was bonafide. The statement by the Sarpanch that he was ill and not in a position to file the appeal was not found to be a proper ground. If the Appellate Authority at that stage had learnt that the Sarpanch is so closely related to the respondents, then not only result might have been different but some action may have followed against him. A view is possible that this appeal was intentionally filed with a delay to defeat the rights of the Panchayat. The writ petition also seems to have been filed just to show that the Panchayat had taken an action, as can be seen from the subsequent conduct of the Sarpanch in withdrawing the same, when order which he expected, was not forthcoming. All this is enough to set-aside the impugned orders.
Order dated 22.12.1994 passed by the Collector/Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, and the one passed by the Joint Development Commissioner, thus, can not be sustained and are set-aside. The application filed by respondent Nos.3 to 7 would go back to the competent authority to decide the issue of ownership afresh. The
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4566 OF 2007 :{ 8 }:
Authority would grant proper opportunity of hearing to the respective parties and a chance to produce all the relevant evidence. The Authority shall accordingly pass an order in accordance with law. Any observation made in the earlier order passed shall not be taken into consideration for any purpose whatsoever and the case shall now be decided afresh on the material that is placed before the authorities by the respective parties.
Before parting with the order, I can not help but to make comments regarding the conduct of the then Sarpanch, Ajmer Singh. He has clearly deceived the Panchayat and the entire Village population and, thus, has betrayed the trust reposed in him to look after the interest of Panchayat. He had acted to favour his sons, brothers and nephews and, thus, even himself. He, in fairness, could not have fairly and sincerely defended the Gram Panchayat. He has deceived the Gram Panchayat and the villagers. His conduct, thus, can not be ignored. He has played fraud with the Courts. His conduct may reveal commission of criminal offences of fraud, breach of trust etc. The conduct of Randhir Singh, who was elected Sarpanch from 1998 to 2003 can also not be termed above board. Though the present Panchayat also did not act promptly in the matter, but then the explanation given by it that they learned about the fraud only when the land was sold by the respondents seems plausible. There may not be a need to take action against the present set up of Panchayat.
The writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 22.12.1994 and 2.5.1996, Annexures P-1 and P-2, are set-aside. A direction is issued to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala and
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4566 OF 2007 :{ 9 }:
Deputy Commissioner, Patiala to enquire into the matter and take appropriate civil as well as criminal action against all those responsible for committing this fraud with the Gram Panchayat. If any official is found involved in this fraud, action would also be taken against him. Copy of this order be also forwarded to the Director General of Police, Punjab and Chief Secretary, Punjab, to ensure that proper follow up action is taken in regard to the directions issued for investigating and taking action against all those responsible for this fraud.
March 18,2009 khurmi
( RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether impugned orders declaring private respondents as owners of common land should be set aside due to connivance and fraud by the Sarpanch.
Whether the complaint of Sarpanch acting in favor of his close relations negates fair defense of the Panchayat and warrants judicial interference.
Gram Panchayat, Bathoi Khurd, Patiala
Joint Development Commissioner, Chandigarh
Respondent Nos.3 to 7 (Family of Ex-Sarpanch)
Ranjit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
