Punjab-Haryana High Court
Swaran Dass vs State Of Punjab And Others on 20 April, 2023
CWP-6801 of 2016 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:058299-DB -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
CWP No. 6801 of 2016 (O&M)
Reserved on: 11.4.2023
Date of Decision: 20.4.2023
Swaran Dass .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Argued by: Mr. Nitin Kaushal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Monika Jalota, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Mr. H.S.Batth, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
Mr. S.S.Swaich, Advocate
for respondents No. 3 and 4.
Mr. Johny, Advocate for
Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Advocate
for respondents No. 5 to 9.
****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.
Factual background
1. Gram Panchayat of village Jattan Niwan, Tehsil Khamano,
District Fatehgarh Sahib, through its Panch Rajinder Singh instituted, before
the Collector concerned, a petition, under Section 7 of the Punjab Village
Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short 'the PVCL Act, 1961), to
which petition case No. 20 of 6.10.2015 became assigned. In the said case,
one Sawarn Dass, chela of Baba Puran Dass, Chela of Baba Masat Ram,
GURPREET SINGH
2023.04.25 14:47
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgement
CWP-6801 of 2016 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:058299-DB -2-
Mohatim, dera Baba Masat Ram, resident of village Jattana Niwan, Tehsil
Khamano, District Fatehgarh Sahib, was impleaded as a respondent. The
claim made in the said petition was for ejectment of the respondent from the
land situated in khasra No. 21//17(7-11), 18/1(7-0), measuring 14 kanals and
11 marlas. The learned Collector concerned, through a decision made, on
11.2.2016, on the case (supra), decision whereof is enclosed in Annexure P-
9/T, proceeded to make an order of dismissal on the petition (supra).
However, the said decision, as made by the learned Collector concerned,
was not challenged by the Gram Panchayat concerned, before the appellate
authority concerned. Therefore, the verdict of dismissal, as became made on
case (supra), by the learned Collector concerned, and, as becomes enclosed
in Annexure P-9/T, thus does acquire a binding, and, conclusive effect.
Therefore, the gair mumkin samadh of Baba Masat Ram, and gair mumkin
kutia, as comprised in khasra No. 21//17(7-11), 18/1(7-0), measuring 14
kanals and 11 marlas, is to be concluded to be not vesting in the Panchayat
deh concerned.
Jurisdiction exercised by the Director concerned, on the motion of the
petitioner concerned, does not at all affect the verdict enclosed in
Annexure P-9/T, as the said exercised jurisdiction by the Director, is
limited to ensure only the able management and control of the affairs of
the Samadh concerned, with but is a place of worship.
2. Be that as it may, a reading of Annexure P-12/T, which
encloses an order made by the Director, Village Development and
Panchayat, Punjab (for short 'the Director'), reveals that the petitioners
therein, one Meva Singh and one Jagjit Singh, had accessed the Director
concerned, hence for seeking the cancellation of resolution dated 22.4.2008,
as became passed by the Gram Panchayat concerned, whereby a committee
GURPREET SINGH
2023.04.25 14:47 had been constituted for the management of Dera Baba Masat Ram, village
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgement
CWP-6801 of 2016 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:058299-DB -3-
Jattan Niwan. The above petitioners also prayed, that the Gram panchayat
concerned, be directed to take appropriate steps, to manage the dera lands
measuring 22 kanals 11 marlas. The reasons, as set-forth thereins, for
rescinding of the said resolution, became grooved in the factum, that some
greedy people, in connivance with the Gram Panchayat concerned, were
misusing the funds of the samadh concerned, and, were also indulging in
manufacturing of wine in the dera. On the petition (supra), the learned
Director concerned, through a decision made thereons, on 18.3.2006, made a
direction, that though, the Panchayat concerned, is entitled to form a
committee under Section 25 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994
provisions whereof are extracted hereinafter.
25. Standing Committees of Gram Panchayats.
(1) Every Gram Panchayat shall constitute the following
committees by election, namely. -
(i) the Production Committee for performing functions
relating to agriculture production, animal
husbandry and rural industries and poverty
alleviation programmes;
(ii) the Social Justice Committee for performing
function relating to -
(a) promotion of education, economic,
social, cultural and other interests of the
Scheduled Caste, and Backward Classes
and other weaker sections.
(b) protection of such castes and classes
from social injustice and any form of
exploitation;
(c) welfare of women and children;
(iii) the Amenities Committee to perform functions in
respect of education, public health, public works
and other functions of the Gram Panchayat.
(2) (a) Each Standing Committee shall consist of not less
than three and not more than five members including the
Sarpanch and the Sarpanch shall be the ex officio
member and Chairman of all these Standing Committees:
GURPREET SINGH
2023.04.25 14:47
I attest to the accuracy and
Provided that the Social Justice Committee shall
authenticity of this
order/judgement
CWP-6801 of 2016 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:058299-DB -4-
consist of at least one member who is a woman and
one member belonging to the scheduled Castes or
Backward Classes.
(b) Each Committee shall be competent to co-opt. In
such manner as may be prescribed, members of farmers
clubs, mahila mandals, yuvak mandals and other similar
bodies recognized by the State Government and
representative of co-operative societies in the Gram
Panchayat area shall also be co-opted to the Production
Committee.
(3) The Standing Committees shall perform the functions
referred to in subsection (2) to the extent the powers are
delegated to them by the Gram Panchayat.
3. However, given the fact that since the membership of the
panchayat undergoes a change, therefore, the BDPO, Khamano was directed
to form a committee, hence comprising of the elected Sarpanches, and,
Panches to the Panchayat but for managing and controlling the offerings, as,
made at the samadh by the worshippers, and, thereafter deposit the said
income in the accounts of the Gram Panchayat concerned, so that, the said
deposited income is used for the welfare of the villagers. Moreover, the user
of such deposited amounts, was directed to be made only after a resolution,
being made by the Gram Panchayat concerned.
4. Since one Sawran Dass failed to produce any record to show
that he was appointed as a Mohatim of the Dera, therefore, it was but
concluded, that he had no right, title and interest to succeed, to the gaddi of
his predecessor(s)-in-interest, and, nor held any right, title or interest to
manage the affairs of the dera or of the samadh concerned.
5. Though the verdict, made on the petition (supra) (Annexure P-
9/T), does acquire a conclusive, and, binding effect, as the samadh of the
said Saint, is reflected in the jamabandi drawn for the year 1954-55, and, as
relates to the petition land, to become located in khasra No. 21//14(8-0),
GURPREET SINGH
2023.04.25 14:47 17(7-11), 18/1(7-0). Therefore, since the jamabandi for the said year, and,
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgement
CWP-6801 of 2016 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:058299-DB -5-
with its making the above reflections, is drawn prior to the coming into force
of the PVCT Act, 1961. Resultantly, when Section 2(g)(5)(ix) of the PVCL
Act, 1961, provisions whereof become extracted hereinafter, saves from
vestment in the panchayat deh, such used lands as a place of worship or for
purposes, subservient thereto, especially when such users whereofs, is but
evidently recorded to occur, rather immediately before the commencement
of the Act (supra).
(ix) was being used as a place of worship or for purposes,
subservient thereto, immediately before the commencement of
this Act].
6. Resultantly, and, reiteratedly with the existence of the above
reflections in the jamabandi relating to the said land, jamabandi whereof
became drawn prior to coming into force of the PVCL Act, 1961. Thus, the
said entries, save the lands, rather with the above designations, but from
their vestment in the panchayat deh.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, has very vehemently
argued before this Court, that since the Gram Panchayat concerned,
instituted against the petitioner herein, a civil suit bearing No. 333 of
16.9.2011, claiming thereins the relief of possession, and, also a further
relief of permanent prohibitory injunction. However, when the above
espoused relief was declined by the learned Civil Court concerned, through a
judgment made on the suit (supra), on 13.8.2012. Furthermore, when the
appeal bearing No. RBT-163 of 2012, as became filed thereagainst, by the
aggrieved Gram Panchayat concerned, also resulted in a similar verdict of
dismissal being made thereons, on 13.2.2013. Moreover, when, upon RSA
No. 1131 of 2013, as became filed by the aggrieved Gram Panchayat
GURPREET SINGH
2023.04.25 14:47
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgement
CWP-6801 of 2016 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:058299-DB -6-
concerned, before this Court, rather a verdict of dismissal was made by this
Court, on 26.5.2014. Therefore, it is contended that the Director concerned,
through his drawing the verdict, as enclosed in Annexure P-12/T, could not
substitute the present petitioner with a committee to manage, and, control
the affairs of the dera or of the samadh, given the present petitioner, being
declared by the judgments, and, decrees (supra) to be in possession of the
land concerned.
Reasons for rejecting the above arguments
8. However, the above made argument is extremely frail, and, is
rejected by this Court. The principal reason for rejecting the above
argument, is rested upon the factum, that even if this Court, for reasons
(supra), has assigned conclusivity to the verdict of dismissal, as made by the
Collector concerned, on case No. 20 of 6.10.2015. However, the assigning
of conclusivity to the verdict, as made by the learned Collector concerned,
on case No. 20 of 6.10.2015, upon the petition filed under the PVCL Act,
1961, is rested, only on the ground, that the petition lands with the above
designation, were but saved from their vestment in the panchayat deh.
However, the application of the saving clause to the petition land, would not
per se facilitate one Swaran Dass, to claim any legitimate right, title, and,
interest to the samadh or dera, of his predecessor(s)-in-interest, but merely
on the anvil of the above binding, and, conclusive decrees, as made by the
learned Civil Courts concerned.
9. Though, the Civil Courts concerned, in respect of the above
desgination assigned to the petition land, did have the jurisdiction to
entertain, and, try the suit for possession, and, for permanent prohibitory
injunction, and, which relief(s) was claimed by the Gram Panchayat
GURPREET SINGH
2023.04.25 14:47
concerned. However, a perusal of the judgments, and, decrees, as become
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgement
CWP-6801 of 2016 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:058299-DB -7-
relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, do not, as required by
law, display that despite the verdict of dismissal, being made upon the said
suit for possession, and, prohibitory injunction, also carry any declaration,
excepting the petitioner herein, who was the defendant in the said suit, being
in admitted possession of the suit land, qua his also being entitled to retain
the said possession but pointedly on the plank that he was the validly
appointed successor to the petition properties, by his predecessor-in-interest
concerned. Even no issue in respect thereof become struck by the Civil
Court(s) concerned, nor when any finding became recorded thereons.
Therefore, the said Swaran Dass cannot, on the basis of the judgment(s),
and, decree(s) (supra), as, made by the Civil Court concerned, claim that he
was the validly appointed successor to the petition properties, by his
predecessor-in-interest.
10. Necessarily, when only on the above finding, occurring in the
judgments, and, decrees, as made by the learned Civil Court concerned,
could one Swaran Dass rather claim a valid succession to the gaddi or to the
samadh of one Masat Ram. However, when no such declaration, exists
thereins, thereupon, irrespective of the fact, that the above designated lands,
are excluded from vestment in the panchayat deh, yet for want of the
petitioner bringing-forth evidence suggesting that he can well stake a valid
claim to succeed to the samadh or to the dera of his predecessor-in-interest
one Masat Ram. Resultantly, the petitioner herein cannot claim any
legitimate right, title or interest to either control or manage the samadh or
dera concerned, nor he can maintain any valid right, title or interest to
manage the lands appurtenant thereto or subservient to the dera or samadh of
one Masat Ram.
GURPREET SINGH
2023.04.25 14:47
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this Even before the learned Director concerned, there is a clear
order/judgement
CWP-6801 of 2016 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:058299-DB -8-
discussion, that for want of adduction of evidence in respect of one Swaran
Dass, the petitioner herein, succeeding to the gaddi or the samadh of one
Masat Ram. Therefore, in the absence of the petitioner validly succeeding to
the gaddi or the samadh or Masat Ram, and, irrespective of the said gaddi or
samadh, and/or the lands appurtenant thereto, being subservient to the said
religious purposes, and, where people pay homage, rather becoming saved
from their vestment, in the panchayat deh, yet does not entitle the petitioner
to stake any claim to yet continue to manage, and, control the earnings,
and/or to manage or control the lands appurtenant to the samadh or the dera
which but are subservient to the religious purposes concerned.
12. Even though before this Court, the petitioner has placed on
record Annexure P-1/T, which reveals that he has been appointed as the
successor to the gaddi of one Mahant Puran Dass, but only a photocopy
thereof has been placed on record. It appears, that the said document was
drawn in the year 1994, hence prior to the petitioner being impleaded as a
party-respondent in the proceedings, as became drawn by the Director
concerned, and, which resulted in the drawing of Annexure P-12/T.
However, he has chosen to yet belatedly therefrom institute an application
(supra) before this Court. Though, it would be permissible for him to argue
before this Court, that it is required to be adduced as a piece of additional
evidence to support his claim, of his succeeding to the gaddi or to the
samadh concerned, and/or to the offerings made there by the devotees
concerned, besides to succeed to the land(s) appurtenant thereto which are
subservient to the said religious purpose(s). However, the said argument
could be well built, on the statutory pedestal, as becomes encapsulated in
Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC, provisions whereof become extracted
GURPREET SINGH
2023.04.25 14:47
hereinafter, only when he was able to show, but in an application filed in
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgement
CWP-6801 of 2016 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:058299-DB -9-
terms of the said provisions, that despite exercise of due diligence, the said
document was not made earlier available to him.
"27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court.-
(1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce
additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the
Appellate Court. But if--
(a) the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has
refused to admit evidence which ought to have been
admitted, or ;
(aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence,
establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due
diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or
could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced
by him at the time when the decree appealed against was
passed, or
(b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be
produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to
pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the
Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be
produced, or witness to be examimed.
(2) Whenever additional evidence is allowed to the produced,
by an Appellate Court, the court shall record the reason for its
admission."
13. Since the said application has not been filed in terms of the said
provisions, nor any averment in terms of the above statutory provisions, has
been made in the said application. Therefore, reliance, if any, made upon the
said document, but as a piece of permissible additional evidence, to support
the claim of the petitioner of his succeeding to the gaddi or the samadh
concerned, rather cannot be accepted by this Court.
GURPREET SINGH
2023.04.25 14:47
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgement
CWP-6801 of 2016 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:058299-DB -10-
Final order
14. In the wake of the above discussion, this Court finds no merit in
the petition, and, is constrained to dismiss it. Consequently, the petition is
dismissed. The impugned order is maintained, and, affirmed.
15. The pending application(s), if any, is/are also disposed of.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
JUDGE
(KULDEEP TIWARI)
JUDGE
April 20th, 2023
Gurpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
GURPREET SINGH
2023.04.25 14:47
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgement
