C.R. No.4228 of 2004 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.4228 of 2004 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.10.2009 Sheel Kumar .....Petitioner Versus Lakhmi Chand and another ...Respondents Present: Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The revision is against an order dismissing a suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The property in suit was admittedly a gair mumkin johar, the title of which vested with the Panchayat. The plaintiff claimed that he had purchased the possessory right from the 1st defendant but he claimed that he had been unlawfully dispossessed without due recourse to law on 28.03.2001. The plaintiff had immediately filed the suit for recovery of possession on 31.03.2001 and he had also asked for other reliefs like mandatory injunction and mesne profits. The Panchayat, which was represented through the Sarpanch sought to C.R. No.4228 of 2004 (O&M) -2- justify its action on the ground that the plaintiff was not himself the owner and that the action of removal had been taken only pursuant to direction from the Government for removal of encroachments. The plaintiff had been removed along with the scores of others and only the plaintiff has filed the suit while others have not raised any obstructions. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits with reference to Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Regulation Act, 1961 (as applicable to Haryana) that a Panchayat Officer or any person authorized by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, after making such summary enquiry, as it may deem fit and in accordance with such procedure, eject any person who is in wrongful or unauthorized possession of the land which is vested in the Panchayat. The power to evict is again given only to the Assistant Collector of the 1st Grade having jurisdiction in the village to act suo motu or on the application made to him by the Panchayat or any inhabitant of the village or the Block Development and Panchayat Officer or Social Education and Panchayat Officer or any other person so authorized. The learned counsel would submit that the power of ejectment itself can be exercised only on a complaint after such summary enquiry as it may deem fit through the Assistant Collector. Learned counsel also refers to Rule 20 which details the procedure for the manner of securing eviction. C.R. No.4228 of 2004 (O&M) -3- 3. Sub-clause 1 contemplates that the Assistant Collector shall issue a notice calling upon the person as to why the eviction order could not be passed. Sub-Clause 2 sets out the grounds on which eviction is proposed to be made. Sub-Clause 3 provides for a simultaneous publication of notice in a conspicuous place outside the Panchayat Ghar and in a case where the Assistant Collector has reasons to believe that any person in possession of Shamlet Deh without prejudice under provisions of sub-rule, he may serve also a copy of notice to a person actually in possession. The relevant Acts and Rules, therefore, spell out an elaborate procedure as to how the Panchayat shall protect its property against illegal encroachment and again provides for following the basic principles of natural justice before a person in possession is evicted. The Court below unfortunately did not advert to these provisions but had directed itself to a needless adjudication on whether the plaintiff could lawfully purchase a property through an unregistered instrument from the 1st defendant and whether an unregistered instrument could transfer title in respect of property more than Rs.100/-. It also focused its attention on whether the plaintiff could set up title against the Panchayat in relation to gair mumkin johar which was admittedly a property vested in the Panchayat. Before me, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that although relief of mandatory injunction and damages were also asked, he was restricting his claim only to C.R. No.4228 of 2004 (O&M) -4- Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Section 6 provides for a summary procedure and an adjudication of title is irrelevant. All that is necessary for the plaintiff to succeed in an action under Section 6 is that he had been in possession of the property and he was seeking for a relief before Court within a period of six months from the date of dispossession and such complaint of dispossession was made against a person and authority who had dispossessed him otherwise than in due course of law. The due course of law in this case is how Section 7 and Rule 20 prescribe. All these discussions have in some way become academic but I have set out the provisions only for an appropriate guidance that in future, the Court while entertaining an adjudication commenced under Section 6 does not throw out the action as not maintainable against a true owner or examine the issue of title and it shall only decide on the three factors, which I have set out above. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent states that the plaintiff has filed a suit before the learned Collector, Sonepat in No.86 of 2005. Section 6(4) of the Specific Relief Act also avails a remedy to the plaintiff to establish his title to property and recover possession thereof. The plaintiff has in the fresh suit instituted contended in the suit that the action of the defendant was illegal, null and void and liable to be corrected and he has also sought for the relief of permanent injunction from changing C.R. No.4228 of 2004 (O&M) -5- the nature of plot/house in dispute detailed in the plaint. Since plaintiff has elected to seek for an adjudication on his title a further relief for recovery of possession of property in manner sought through the summary procedure laid down under Section 6 becomes unnecessary. 5. Reserving the liberty to the plaintiff to establish the title in the manner canvassed by him, the civil revision petition is disposed of. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 14, 2009 Pankaj*