R.S.A No. 2307 of 1982 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 2307 of 1982 Date of decision : August 27, 2009 Gram Panchayat of village Khanna Majra and another, ...... Appellant (s) v. Jagan Nath and another, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. M.S.Rakkar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. P.S.Baath, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Vipin K.Bali, Advocate for respondent No.1. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the lower appellate Court reversing that of the trial Court and thereby dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/appellant No.1-Gram Panchayat. The question of law proposed by counsel for the appellants is whether even if it is held that the authorization in favour of Ishar Dass (respondent No.2) included the power to compromise, still the Gram Panchayat had a right to accept the claim of respondent No.1 over the land which belonged to the Gram Panchayat in view of rule 16 of the Punjab R.S.A No. 2307 of 1982 ::2:: Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 (for short “the Rules”). The facts are that on 21.11.1967 respondent No.1 filed a suit claiming that he was owner in possession of land measuring 90 kanals 17 marlas allegedly wrongly shown in the ownership of the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat authorized one of the Panches, namely, Ishar Dass (respondent No.2) to defend the suit on its behalf. However, the said Ishar Dass instead of defending the suit accepted the claim of respondent No.1 and consequently the suit was decreed on 18.1.1969. No action was, however, taken by respondent No.1 in furtherance of the said decree for declaration till 1973 when he tried to stall the annual auction which was being conducted by the appellant-Gram Panchayat. Immediately thereafter the Gram Panchayat filed the instant suit. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that neither Ishar Dass was given the authority to accept the claim of respondent No.1 nor in law could the Gram Panchayat accept such a claim. The lower appellate Court, however, held that once the authority to conduct `Pairvi' was granted to Ishar Dass, it must be deemed that he had the right to even accept the claim. However, the lower appellate Court has not at all considered the statutory position. In this context rule 16 of the Rules (notified under Section 15(2) (h) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961) reads thus :- “ 1.- Procedure where a Panchayat sues or is sued in its representative capacity.- (1) The Panchayat shall by a resolution to be recorded in the proceeding book, appoint its Sarpanch or any other panch to contest any suit filed by or against the R.S.A No. 2307 of 1982 ::3:: Panchayat. The Sarpanch or panch so appointed shall file a copy of the resolution duly attested by the Sarpanch under the seal of the Panchayat in the court along with other documents. (2) The actual expenditure incurred in the defence of the case shall be chargeable to the funds of the Panchayat. (3) The Sarpanch or panch so appointed shall not be competent to compound or admit claim of the party suing the Panchayat without prior authorization by the Panchayat by a resolution in writing passed in a meeting specifically called for the purpose. If any decree or order is passed by the court as a result of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment of facts or collusion with the opposite party, the Sarpanch or panch shall be personally liable for the loss caused to the Panchayat.” A perusal of the above rule clearly reveals that it was not for the Panchayat to disprove that the authorization in favour of Ishar Dass did not extend to admission of claim of respondent No.1 but it was for respondent No.1 to aver and prove by positive evidence that in fact the authorization given by the Panchayat included the competence to admit the claim. In this context it may be noticed that in the written statement filed to the instant suit no such plea was taken. Rather, in para 9 (1) it was mentioned as follows :- “ 9(1) In reply to sub-para (1) of para 9 of the plaint, it is submitted that Shri Ishar Dass was authorised to conduct R.S.A No. 2307 of 1982 ::4:: the suit on behalf of the plaintiff, but it is emphatically denied that he had colluded with the answering defendant in getting the decree passed in his favour. The decree has been rightly passed in respect of the suit property.” In the absence of any positive plea or any evidence in this regard, it could not be held that the authorization in favour of Ishar Dass extended to the extent of competence to admit the claim of respondent No.1. Consequently, holding the above question in favour of the appellants, this appeal is allowed, and the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court is set aside while that of the trial Court is restored. ( AJAY TEWARI ) August 27, 2009. JUDGE `kk'