LPA No. 686 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No. 686 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.08.2009 Gram Panchayat, Vill. Bahamanian ....Appellant. Versus Jagir Singh and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S. Khehar Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.D. Anand Present: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate for the appellant. ... J.S. Khehar, J. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, Mohinder Kaur -respondent No.4 made a complaint against Jagir Singh – respondent No.1, alleging encroachment of land belonging to the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat, Village Bahamanian, accordingly proceeded against Jagir Singh – respondent No.1 by filing a petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 1961 Act), wherein the appellant – Gram Panchayat sought the eviction of the respondent - Jagir Singh from the land of the Gram Panchayat. One of the primary considerations during the adjudication of the claim raised by the Gram Panchayat was, whether Jagir Singh – respondent No.1 had encroached a common street abutting his land. Besides other deliberations carried out in this direction, consequent upon LPA No. 686 of 2009 2 the filing of Civil Writ Petition No.20116 of 2008 (at the behest of Jagir Singh – respondent No.1), the instant issue was again examined on the basis of the directions of this Court, whereupon a report was filed. Reference to the aforesaid report stands recorded in the motion Bench order passed on 18.5.2009 (in Civil writ Petition No.20116 of 2008), wherein the submission at the hands of the learned counsel for the Gram Panchayat to the effect, that Jagir Singh – respondent No.1 had constructed a house in the street, was not accepted. Having arrived at the conclusion, that the public street had not been encroached, the learned Single Judge referred to an order passed during the course of motion hearing, wherein the offer made by Jagir Singh – respondent No.1 was taken into consideration, namely, that he was ready and willing to give land equivalent to the land occupied by him in the same village, adjacent to the existing land of the Gram Panchayat, or alternatively, he was ready and willing to compensate the Gram Panchayat by tendering twice the Collector’s rate for the land over which Jagir Singh – respondent No.1 had effected encroachments. Ordinarily, the aforesaid course of action would not be adopted. However, keeping in view the palatial structure raised by Jagir Singh – respondent No.1 (as is evident from the photographs appended to the writ petition as Annexure P-16), the Court considered the reasonableness of the offer made by Jagir Singh – respondent No.1, as the same would totally compensate the appellant – Gram Panchayat. Taking into consideration the acknowledged fact, that Jagir Singh – respondent No.1 had encroached upon 4 Marlas 6 Sarsais of Gram Panchayat land, the Gram Panchayat demanded its pond of flesh by insisting, that Jagir Singh – respondent No.1 be directed to hand over vacant LPA No. 686 of 2009 3 possession of the encroached land. So as to do justice to all concerned, as an equitable measure, this Court, in the absence of any exercise of option to the proposed alternatives suggested by Jagir Singh – respondent No.1, (while disposing of Civil Writ Petition No.20116 of 2008), directed Jagir Singh – respondent No.1 to pay the Gram Panchayat twice the Collector’s rate for the land encroached by him. The aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 30.5.2009, disposing of Civil Writ Petition No.20116 of 2009, is subject matter of challenge at the hands of the appellant – Gram Panchayat. At the outset, it would be material to record, that the Gram Panchayat did not make a grievance of the inadequacy of the compensation ordered to be paid to it by this Court consequent upon the disposal of Civil Writ Petition No.20116 of 2008. The solitary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, however was, that Jagir Singh – respondent No.1 had encroached upon the passage leading to the public street from the land of respondent No.4 – Mohinder Kaur. It is pointed out, that it is at the behest of the aforestated Mohinder Kaur, that the Gram Panchayat had initiated proceedings for the ejectment of Jagir Singh – respondent No.1, and as such, it was not open to the Gram Panchayat to accept any of the two alternatives offered by Jagir Singh – respondent No.1 for the settlement of the controversy (emerging out of the proceedings initiated by the Gram Panchayat against Jagir Singh – respondent No.1, under Section 7 of the 1961 Act). Secondly, learned counsel for the appellant contends, that the passage under reference encroached by Jagir Singh – respondent No.1 further led to a well, and that, the passage of the villagers to the well also came to be encroached upon by LPA No. 686 of 2009 4 Jagir Singh – respondent No.1. It is, therefore, the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the appellant – Gram Panchayat, that the order rendered by the learned Single Judge deserved to be set aside. The two submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, as have been noticed in the foregoing paragraph, need to be examined on the basis of the pleadings in the present appeal. First and foremost, reference needs to be made to the report of the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Jalandhar. Relevant extract whereof is being reproduced hereunder: -- “Jagir Singh has expressed in Hon’ble High Court, his agreeing to deliver the land other than the area of his ownership to the Gram Panchayat. The Panchayat agrees with him, subject to any such order passed by the Court.” The Gram Panchayat having resorted to accept one of the two alternatives suggested by Jagir Singh – respondent No.1, and having made a statement to the aforesaid effect to the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Jalandhar, asserting that it would accept the order passed by this Court, it is not understandable why the appellant has impugned the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 30.5.2009, disposing of Civil Writ petition No.20116 of 2008. Secondly, even the original complainant Mohinder Kaur – respondent No.4 at whose behest proceedings were initiated by the appellant under Section 7 of the 1961 Act, must be deemed to be satisfied at the present juncture in view of the factual position depicted in the order of the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Jalandhar, noticing that a bricked passage has been provided from the house of Mohinder Kaur to the LPA No. 686 of 2009 5 peripheral road (phirni). Thus viewed, it is apparent that Mohinder Kaur has an alternative passage to her house/land, and that, the encroachment made by Jagir Singh – respondent No.1 is presently inconsequential as a brick lined passage is available to her up to the “phirni” of the village. In view of the factual position pertaining to Mohinder Kaur – respondent No.4 also, the order passed by the learned Single Judge was most equitable. Thirdly, we have perused the petition filed under Section 7 of the 1961 Act by the appellant – Gram Panchayat against Jagir Singh – respondent No.1, a copy whereof is available on the record of the pleadings as Annexure P-5. In the aforesaid petition, it is nowhere the case of the Gram Panchayat, that the passage encroached upon by Jagir Singh – respondent No.1 leads to the village well. After the petition filed under Section 7 of the 1961 Act was disposed of by the competent authority vide order dated 3.5.2007, the Gram Panchayat preferred an appeal before the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat. The appeal preferred by the Gram Panchayat is available on the record of the pleadings as Annexure P-8. Even in the said appeal, the Gram Panchayat did not record any narration about any such well, as is being sought to be made out before this Court. Since it was never the case of the Gram Panchayat, that the encroachment made by Jagir Singh – respondent No.1 resulted in blocking the passage leading to a well in the village (there are obviously no such pleadings recorded in Civil Writ Petition No.20116 of 2008, filed by Jagir Singh – respondent No.1), it certainly does not lie in the mouth of the Gram Panchayat to raise any such plea at the instant appellate stage. Having perused the issues canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant in the background of the controversy adjudicated upon by the LPA No. 686 of 2009 6 learned Single Judge, we are of the view that the instant appeal preferred by the appellant is totally frivolous. The appellant could not assail the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge, either on issues of fact or on any issue of law. We have already recorded hereinabove, that the interest of the appellant – Gram Panchayat was fully protected in view of the offer made by Jagir Singh – respondent No.1, which was given effect to by the learned Single Judge. Keeping in view the decision recorded by the Gram Panchayat to accept one of the alternatives suggested by Jagir Singh – respondent No.1, we are surprised at the action of the appellant even in filing the instant appeal. The filing of the instant appeal is definitely not bona fide. So as to prevent persons similarly situated as the appellant from misusing the jurisdiction of this Court, we are satisfied that the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed with costs. The instant appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/-. The aforesaid costs shall be deposited by the appellant with the Legal Services Authority, Punjab, within one month from today and a receipt thereof shall be placed on the record of the instant case. In case, no such receipt is placed on the record of the instant appeal within the time stipulated hereinabove, the Registry is directed to re-list this case for motion hearing for recovery of costs. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ( J.S. Khehar ) Judge ( S.D. Anand ) Judge 03.08.2009 sk.