GRAM PANCHAYAT,VILLAGE BAHMANIAN Vs. JAGIR SINGH & ORS.

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 10562 of 2014, Judgment Date: Nov 26, 2014

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


                       CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION


                      CIVIL APPEAL NO.  10562    /2014

              [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 35854 of 2009]



Gram Panchayat, Village Bahmanian                         ...  Appellant (s)


                                   Versus


Jagir  Singh and others                                   ... Respondent (s)



                               J U D G M E N T



KURIAN, J.:



Leave granted.


Alleging that the first respondent had encroached upon  the  land  belonging

to the Panchayat, more particularly, a  public  street,  the  appellant-Gram

Panchayat has been airing its grievance before various forums. It  succeeded

in getting an order of eviction from the  competent  authority.  That  order

was challenged in Civil Writ  Petition  No.  20116  of  2005  by  the  first

respondent. The learned Single  Judge  of  the  High  Court  of  Punjab  and

Haryana, in judgment dated 30.05.2009, passed the following order:

"It appears that the Panchayat is unnecessarily  trying  to  create  problem

for the petitioner. The petitioner apparently has constructed  a  house  and

as per the report has not encroached upon any street. His plea  is  that  it

may be a private street leading to his house constructed on  a  land  bought

by him from the private  respondent.  This  will  explain  the  attitude  of

respondent  No.4  in  objecting  to  the  proposal   being   accepted.   The

petitioner, thus, is given liberty to deposit the compensation at twice  the

Collector rate for the land in his possession in the accounts  of  the  Gram

Panchayat. This order is basically passed in  equity  considering  that  the

petitioner has constructed a house and  is  ready  to  compensate  the  Gram

Panchayat for any land, which is found to be encroached by him  but  is  not

part of any street."




The stand of first respondent was that the alleged encroachment is not on  a

public street but a pathway leading to the house of  the  fourth  respondent

from whom he had bought the land. However, in the Report  dated  15.05.2009,

made by the District Development and Panchayat  Officer,  Jalandhar,  it  is

mentioned that the alleged encroachment is in Khasra  No.  112  which  is  a

gair mumkin street as per Revenue records.


Thus, aggrieved by the order of the learned  Single  Judge,  the  appellant-

Gram Panchayat approached the Division Bench.  It  was  contended  that  the

nature of the land being  a  public  street,  there  was  no  provision  for

regularization and the first respondent requires to be evicted.


In the impugned judgment, the Division Bench, among other things, took  note

of the fact that the whole proceedings having been originally  initiated  at

the instance of the fourth respondent and  the  said  respondent  apparently

having got an alternate passage, there was apparently no  need  to  rake  up

the issue again.  It was also noted  that  the  Panchayat  did  not  have  a

consistent stand with regard to the passage. The Division Bench  passed  the

following final order:


"Having perused  the  issues  canvassed  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the

appellant in the background of  the  controversy  adjudicated  upon  by  the

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."




Heard the learned Counsel  appearing  for  the  appellant  and  the  learned

Counsel appearing for the respondents.


We are informed that the first respondent, pursuant to the order  passed  by

the learned Single Judge, has already deposited twice the  market  value  of

the alleged encroached land. We have also seen the site plan. It  is  fairly

clear that the width of the passage is only 2 karams which is indicative  of

the fact that it was not a  public  street  commonly  used  by  the  people.

Though it was contended that the pathway leads to the well  of  Beer  Singh,

the said Beer Singh does not  appear  to  have  any  grievance.  The  fourth

respondent, at whose instance the proceedings for eviction  were  initiated,

does not have a grievance as of now. The first  respondent  constructed  the

house more than a decade back. By demolition of the house and  by  restoring

the alleged pathway, is not going  to  enure  to  the  benefit  of  anybody.

Therefore, in the interest  of  justice  and  for  advancing  the  cause  of

justice, we are of the view that the dispute should be given a quietus  once

for all. Without treating it as a precedent, the Panchayat  is  directed  to

acknowledge the deposit of double the  market  value  already  made  by  the

first respondent, as directed by the learned Single Judge,  as  damages  for

the alleged encroachment. There shall be  no  further  proceedings  in  this

regard. The Revenue records shall be corrected accordingly.


We also do not find any justification in enforcing costs on  the  appellant.

After all, the Gram Panchayat has been vindicating a right cause. It  is  in

fact the first respondent who is to bear  the  litigation  expenses  of  the

appellant. The appellant-Gram Panchayat cannot be said to be acting  without

bonafides when they take appropriate action in accordance with  law.  It  is

the encroachment made by the first respondent, which may not be  deliberate,

that dragged the appellant to litigation before various  forums.  Therefore,

we vacate the order on costs imposed on the appellant-Gram Panchayat in  the

impugned judgment. The first respondent instead should bear  the  litigation

expenses of the appellant-Gram Panchayat, which we quantify to  Rs.35,000/-.

This amount shall be paid by the  first  respondent  to  the  appellant-Gram

Panchayat within a month from today.










The appeal is partly allowed as above. There shall be no  further  order  as

to costs.



                                              ........................... J.

                                                        (ANIL R. DAVE)



                                              ............................J.

                                                      (KURIAN JOSEPH)


New Delhi;

November 26, 2014.