C.R. No. 3875 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 3875 of 2009 Date of Decision: 20.10.2009 1. Nachhattar Singh son of Sh. Bitta Singh; 2. Gurdit Singh sno of Sh. Chanan Singh; 3. Ujagar Singh son of Sh. Chanan Singh; 4. Lakhmir Singh son of Sh. Gurbax Singh; all residents of village Jagatpura, Tehsil and District SAS Nagar. ... Revision-Petitioners Versus 1. Director, Rural Development & Panchayats, Punjab (exercising the powers of Commissioner), SCO No. 112-113, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. 2. Gram Panchayat, Jagatpura,Tehsil & District SAS Nagar, through its Administrator. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the revision-petitioners. Mr. V.K. Sandhir, Advocate, for the respondents. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision-petition under Article 227 of the Constitution C.R. No. 3875 of 2009 2 of India, is directed against the order dated 27.03.09, rendered by the Director, Rural Development & Panchayats Department, Punjab, exercising the powers of Commissioner under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, vide which, he condoned the delay of about four years, in filing the appeal. 2. A petition, under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, was filed, by Gurdit Singh, for declaring him, as owner in possession of the land, comprising khewat- khatoni No. 57/104, khasra No, 6//11(8-0), situated in village Jagatpura, H.B. No. 21, Tehsil Mohali, District Ropar, with consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining the Gram Panchayat of village Jagatpura, from interfering, in any manner, in his peaceful possession, over the said land. In that petition, the claim of the petitioner, was that, he had been in possession of the property, in dispute, for the last 50 years, and had raised residential house thereon. 3. In the written reply, filed to the petition, by the Gram Panchayat, it was averred that the land belonged to it, and the petitioner, therein, was in illegal possession of the same. It was further averred that the land had been reserved for common purposes of the village. It was further averred that the construction, raised by the petitioner, therein, was illegal and unauthorized. 4. However, when the petition, was fixed for arguments, on 07.05.04, the petitioner moved an application, that he was ready to deposit the amount, at the Collector rate of the land, under his C.R. No. 3875 of 2009 3 occupation. The Gram Panchayat, through Sarpanch, did not oppose this application of the petitioner. After verifying the possession of the petitioner, through the field staff, the Collector, Rupnagar, passed an order dated 11.06.04, to the effect, that the land, be sold or leased out, in terms of Rule 4 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, in favour of the petitioner. 5. The appeal, against that order, was filed, by the Gram Panchayat, alongwith which, an application for condonation of delay, was filed. It was stated that the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, was in league with the unauthorized occupants of the land of Gram Panchayat, and that was why, he did not oppose the application, filed before the Collector, in the petition, under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. It was further stated that, on account of connivance of the then Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, with the unauthorized occupants, the Collector, passed the illegal order dated 11.06.04. It was further stated that the then Gram Panchayat, which was in connivance with the unauthorized occupants of its land, did not file any appeal. It was further stated that, as soon as the present Gram Panchayat, came to know of the illegal order, dated 11.06.04, in the writ petition, it filed the appeal. It was further stated that, there was no intentional or deliberate delay, in filing the appeal. It was further stated that, since the then Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, played fraud, with the Gram Panchayat, the order dated 11.06.04, was passed. It was further stated that there was, therefore, sufficient cause, for the C.R. No. 3875 of 2009 4 condonation of delay. 6. This application, was opposed by Nachhattar Singh, respondent No. 2 (therein), on the ground, that since the order, was passed, in the presence of the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, it could not be said, that the Sarpanch of the present Gram Panchayat, came to know of the same later on. It was further stated that, even the District Development and Panchayat Officer, had exchanged correspondence with the Collector, and Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, wherein, reference of this order, was made, in clear-cut terms, from time to time, and, under these circumstances, there was no sufficient cause, for the condonation of delay. It was further stated that the order impugned, was liable to be set aside. 7. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 8. The Counsel for the revision-petitioners, took up the same plea, as was taken up, before the Commissioner, under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, at the time of passing the order dated 27.03.09. He submitted that there was no sufficient cause, for the condonation of delay of about four years. He further submitted that the order impugned, being illegal, was liable to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, submitted that, since the then Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, played fraud with the Gram Panchayat, and connived with the unauthorized C.R. No. 3875 of 2009 5 occupants, as a result whereof, the order dated 11.06.04, was passed, by the Collector, the Sarpanch of the present Gram Panchayat, could not come to know about the said order, and, therefore, appeal, could not be filed, in time. He further submitted that the order impugned, being legal and valid, was liable to be upheld. 10. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. Normally, the Courts are reluctant to condone such a long delay, in filing the appeal. However, this principle, cannot be applied universally. Every case, has to be decided, on its own facts and circumstances. In the instant case, as stated above, when the petition, under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, before the Collector, Rupnagar, was pending, at the time of arguments, the then Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, did not oppose the application of the petitioner (therein), for the sale or lease of the property of the Gram Panchayat, in his favour. It was only, on the basis of his connivance, that the order dated 11.06.04, was passed, by the Collector, Rupnagar. Had the Sarpanch of the then Gram Panchayat, opposed such application, moved by the petitioner (therein), the matter would have been different. It was, thus, prima- facie clear, that the then Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, connived with the unauthorized occupants of the land of the Gram Panchayat. He, thus, played fraud, not only with the Collector, but also with the C.R. No. 3875 of 2009 6 Gram Panchayat. No doubt, there is some correspondence, between the authorities concerned, wherein, there was a mention of the order dated 11.06.04, but, on account of fraud, committed by the then Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, knowledge, could not be derived, regarding the passing of the order, by the Sarpanch of the present Gram Panchayat. Fraud vitiates all proceedings. A person, who plays fraud with the authorities concerned, cannot be allowed to reap the fruits of his fraudulent actions. It was under these circumstances, that the Director, Rural Development & Panchayats Department, Punjab, exercising the powers of Commissioner under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, was persuaded, to come to the conclusion, that the Gram Panchayat came to know of the order dated 11.06.04, when notice in the writ petition was issued on 05.07.08 and, as such, there was sufficient cause, for the condonation of delay of four years. A subsequent event also supervened, which necessitated the condonation of delay, in filing the appeal. That subsequent event, was that, Gurdev Singh son of Chanan Singh, filed Civil Writ Petition No. 4850 of 2008, in this Court, on 31.03.08, alleging therein, that Gram Panchayat, had not implemented the order, passed by the Collector, Rupnagar, on 11.06.04. Notice of that Writ Petition, was issued, to the Gram Panchayat, on 05.07.08. When the Gram Panchayat, received the notice, it came to know regarding the passing of the order dated 11.06.04, by the Collector, Rupnagar. It also came to know, that no appeal, had been filed, against the same. It was, thereafter, that an C.R. No. 3875 of 2009 7 application alongwith the application, for condonation of delay, was filed. It is further evident from the affidavit, filed by the Administrator of Gram Panchayat, Jagatpura, that, in the aforesaid Writ Petition, vide order dated 16.04.09, the order dated 11.06.04, passed by the Collector, Rupnagar, was held to be illegal, as having been passed, in connivance with the then Members Panchayat of the Gram Panchayat, to grab the valuable Panchayat land, around the periphery of city Mohali. The Director, Rural Development & Panchayats Department, Punjab, exercising the powers of Commissioner, under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, thus, rightly passed the impugned order. The order impugned, cannot be said to be illegal. 11. Not only this, in the grounds of revision-petition, in para No. 11, it was averred, by the petitioner, that one Gurdev Singh, filed a Writ Petition, in this Court, that the order dated 11.06.04, passed by the Collector, be implemented. However, there is not even a fleeting reference, in the revision-petition, that the said Writ was dismissed on 16.04.09 and the order dated 11.06.04, passed by the Collector, was held to be illegal. Despite knowledge of the decision, in that Writ Petition, the petitioner, failed to make a reference of the same, in the grounds of revision-petition. The petitioner, thus, approached the Court, by concealing the material facts. Whoever approaches the Court, with falsehood, is not entitled to any relief. He can be thrown out, at any stage of the proceedings. On this ground too, the revision-petition, is liable to be dismissed. C.R. No. 3875 of 2009 8 12. The order impugned, does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity, or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The submission of the Counsel for the revision- petitioners, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 13. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same, is dismissed. 20.10.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE