IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 18545 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : 04.10.2011 Balkar Singh .... PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr. M.S. Dhami, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) Petitioner Balkar Singh has filed the instant petition for quashing the order dated 12.8.2011 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Commissioner, whereby the delay of 22 years and 9 months in filing the appeal by the Gram Panchayat, has been condoned. In this case, the petition/suit filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, for declaring him owner of the land measuring 32 kanals 17 marlas, was allowed by the Collector on August 04, 1988. Against the said order, no appeal was filed by the Gram Panchayat, as the then Gram Panchayat was in collusion with the petitioner. Later on, when the present Gram Panchayat came to know about the said collusive order, it filed appeal against the said CWP No. 18545 of 2011 -2- order with an application for condonation of delay of 22 years and 9 months in filing the appeal. In the said application, it was averred that the earlier Gram Panchayat had connived with petitioner Balkar Singh. The subsequent Gram Panchayats also did not take note of the order dated August 04, 1988. The present Gram Panchayat, after coming to know about the said order on May 02, 2011, applied for the certified copy of the order and approached the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Patiala, for advice. Thereafter, the appeal against the said order dated August 04, 1988, was filed. It was further averred that the delay in filing the appeal has been caused due to the connivance of the then Gram Panchayat with the petitioner and the appeal was filed within limitation from the date of knowledge of the order. Vide order dated 12.8.2011, the Commissioner, after coming to the conclusion that since the previous Gram Panchayat and its functionaries were in collusion with the petitioner, therefore, the then Gram Panchayat consciously and deliberately did not file appeal within time, has allowed the said application and condoned the delay of 22 years 9 months in filing the appeal. Against the said order of the Commissioner, the present writ petition has been filed. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. It is common knowledge that in villages, due to party faction and in order to create vote bank, the members/Sarpanch of the Gram CWP No. 18545 of 2011 -3- Panchayat some times collude with the proprietors and, while acting in malafide manner, get an illegal and undeserving order passed in favour of the proprietors. In the present case also, a finding has been recorded by the Commissioner that the previous Gram Panchayat, in collusion with the petitioner, in a fraudulent manner got the petition of the petitioner allowed from the court of the Collector and thereafter, it did not file appeal against the said order. It is well settled that when the public property, particularly the property belonging to the Gram Panchayat, is involved, and the Gram Panchayat deliberately does not defend the case filed by a proprietor of the village and then opts not to file appeal against the said order, liberal approach is to be adopted by the court to protect the property of the Gram Panchayat. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent decision in Balwant Singh Versus Jagdish Singh and others (Civil Appeal No. 1166 of 2006), decided on July 08, 2010, has dealt with the issues of `condonation of delay' and `sufficient cause', as contained in the Limitation Act, and observed as under : “The words “sufficient cause for not making the application within the period of limitation” should be understood and applied in a reasonable, pragmatic, practical and liberal manner, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, and the type of case. The words “sufficient cause” in Section 5 of Limitation Act should receive CWP No. 18545 of 2011 -4- a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, when the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bona fides, deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the appellant.” In the present case, the delay in filing the appeal is not on account of dilatory tactics, want of bona fides, deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the present Gram Panchayat. Rather the previous Gram Panchayat did not file the appeal, as it was in collusion with the petitioner. When this fact came to the notice of the present Gram Panchayat, after taking advise of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Patiala, it immediately filed appeal with an application for condonation of delay. In these facts and circumstances, the delay in filing the appeal has been rightly condoned by the Commissioner and the appeal has been ordered to be heard on merits. If the petitioner has good case on merits, then the hearing of appeal on merits will not cause any prejudice to him. Thus, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order, passed by the Commissioner. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE October 04, 2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) ndj JUDGE