Second appeal dismissed holding that a Village Committee lacked authority to auction trees owned by a Gram Panchayat, rendering the auction resolution null and void.
The second appeal was dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 4851 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: 8.2.2012.
Ishwar Singh
--Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana & others
--Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present:Mr. Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J
The plaintiff-appellant is in second appeal before this Court having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below.
The plaintiff-appellant instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in terms of pleadings that Gram Sabha, Village Bishanpur, Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari had passed a resolution on 14.1.2000 for auctioning the trees of Shamlat Deh by carving out plots. The plaintiff-appellant had submitted his bid, which had been accepted for Rs.4,36,000/- and he had paid Rs.1,20,000/- to the Gram Sabha. He further pleaded that upon starting to cut the trees, defendant no.2 i.e. the Block Development & Panchayat Officer, Bawal had stopped them and had issued a notice dated 15.5.2000 upon which a reply had been duly submitted by the plaintiff-appellant. It was further pleaded that the matter was sent to the District Forest Officer, Mahendergarh for valuation of the trees and the Forest Officer had valued the same to be Rs.1,02,000/-. Plaintiff-appellant pleaded that without furnishing any opportunity, an order had been passed against him on 23.8.2001 by the B.D.P.O, Bawal against which he had preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Rewari exercising the
RSA No. 4851 of 2010(O&M) -2-
powers of Director, Panchayats, Haryana, defendant no.3 but vide order dated 21.3.2003 the appeal had been dismissed. It is under such circumstances that a declaration had been sought impugning the order dated 23.8.2001 passed by the B.D.P.O as also the order dated 21.3.2003 passed by the appellate authority.
The suit was contested and in the written statement it was specifically pleaded that the Village Committee/Sabha has no authority to auction the trees, which are in the ownership of the Gram Panchayat. It was pleaded that the trees were standing in the land of the Gram Panchayat and in terms of the provisions of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 the same could not have been auctioned by a Gram Committee. Even the resolution dated 14.1.2000 of the Village Committee was wholly without jurisdiction and was null and void. It was further stated that the order dated 23.8.2001 passed by the B.D.P.O and order dated dated 21.3.2003 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Rewari are perfectly valid and tenable in law.
Upon the pleadings of the parties, following two crucial issues were framed:-
Upon hearing the parties and having scanned the evidence brought on record the Trial Court dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff-appellant preferred a civil appeal and vide impugned judgement dated 15.5.2010 the Additional District Judge, Rewari has upheld the judgement and decree dated 13.6.2008 passed by the Trial Court and has
RSA No. 4851 of 2010(O&M)
-3-
dismissed the appeal.
I have heard Mr. Kulbhushan Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant at length.
Having given my thoughtful consideration to the matter at hand, I find that the present second appeal is wholly devoid of merit. Cogent evidence has been brought on record to prove that the trees were standing in the Panchayat Deh in the ownership of Gram Panchayat. The Village Committee would not be vested with any legal right to auction the same. As such the resolution dated 14.1.2000 passed by the Village Committee has been held to be null and void. Such Village Committee/Gram Committee was not even made a party to the suit for it to have proved that it had any authority to auction the trees standing on the Gram Panchayat land. The assertion of the plaintiff-appellant that he had not been given any opportunity prior to the passing of the impugned orders is also factually incorrect. The courts below have held that in the pleadings the plaintiff-appellant had himself admitted that he had filed a reply on 4.6.2001 in response to the notice dated 15.5.2000 issued by the B.D.P.O and it was only thereupon that the order dated 23.8.2001 was passed. The order dated 21.3.2003 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Rewari is on the appeal preferred by the plaintiff-appellant himself.
The concurrent findings of the courts below are upon due appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from any perversity. The instant second appeal does not raise any question of law much less substantial question of law.
RSA No. 4851 of 2010(O&M)
-4-
The appeal must fail and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE
8.2.2012. lucky
Whether to be reported?No.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the orders dated 23.8.2001 and 21.3.2003 are liable to be set aside?
Whether the defendants are legally recovering the impugned amount from the plaintiff?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ishwar Singh
State of Haryana
Tejinder Singh Dhillon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
