Full Judgment Text
1
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.
2. 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
JUDGMENT
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
Page 1
2
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.”
3. 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.
JUDGMENT
4. 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.
5. In the impugned judgment, the Division Bench, among other
things, took note of the fact that the whole proceedings having
Page 2
3
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.”
JUDGMENT
Page 3
4
6. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and
the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.
7. 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
JUDGMENT
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.
Page 4
5
The Revenue records shall be corrected accordingly.
8. 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
JUDGMENT
a month from today.
Page 5
6
9. 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.
JUDGMENT
Page 6