Bapna, J.—This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and discloses the extent of the illegality that can be committed by the Tehsil Panchayats and the Executive officers of the State.

2. The petitioner Poona made an application to the Gram Panchayat of Dadai. Tehsil Desuri on 27th May, 1956. that he was in possession of a house in village, Dadai, the boundaries whereof were—

(a) On the left side while entering the house; house of Mahajan Himmat Mal.

(b) On the right side while entering the house; house of Pratapmal Bhootaji.

(c) On the back of the house; house of Pratapmal Bhootaji.

(d) Towards the door; public way.

The prayer was that the Patta be granted to him. The application was made under the Panchayat General Rule 37(A)(18). Lakhma, Shivlal and Kesa objected and claimed that the house belonged to them and Patta should not be granted to Poona. The Gram Panchayat after enquiry passed an order on 12.1.57 that Poona was in possession for above 57 years and the Patta be granted under the aforesaid rule. Lakhma, Shivlal and Kesha filed an appeal to the Tehsil Panchayat Desuri. The Tehsil Panchayat by order of 7th September, 1957 came to the finding that a Patta for the land of the house had already been obtained by the appellants from Thikana Beda and therefore Poona was not entitled to a fresh Patta being granted to him. The Tehsil Panchayat further gave a finding that Poona respondent had been given possession over the house by an ancestor of the objectors Lakhma, Shivlal and Kesa and ordered that Poona should handover the possession of the house to the appellants. A direction was given to the Gram Panchayat for compliance of this order. Poona, however, sold the house on 23.10.58 to Ganeshmal, petitioner No. 2.

3. Some time later Lakhma and others made an application to the Sub Divisional Officer, Bali that the orders of the Tehsil Panchayat should be executed. The Sub Divisional Officer, Bali by order of 2nd December, 1958 directed the Station House Officer Bali that as Poona had not delivered the possession of the house in spite of the decision of the Tehsil Panchayat, the said police officer should go to the spot and get the possession delivered to Likhma and others within seven days. The sub Inspector went to the spot on 3rd December, 1958 and dispossessed Poona and Ganeshmal and delivered the possession to Shivlal and Kesa and made a report of the compliance on the next day to the Sub-Divisional Officer. The order of the Sub Divisional Officer is Ex.6 and the proceedings of the delivery of possession are Ex. 7 and the report of the compliance is Ex.8.

4. Poona and Ganeshmal have filed this petition on 15.12.58 and it is contended on their behalf that the Tehsil Panchayat had no authority to order that the petitioner should be dispossessed and the Sub Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to carry out the order of the Tehsil Panchayat and that the Sub Divisional Officer should be directed to restore the possession of the petitioner. The Tehsil Panchayat, Desuri, the Gram Panchayat, Dadai, the Sub Divisional Officer, Bali, Lakhma, Shivlal and Kesa are made respondents, but of these Shivlal alone has entered appearance.

5. Learned counsel on behalf of Shivlal urged that the possession having been delivered to rightful owners substantial justice has been done and that this court should not interfere.

6. The contention raised by learned counsel for the respondent has no force. What Poona wanted from the Gram Panchayat was Patta sale deed of the plot of land under the house, by the Gram Panchayat under r.37A (18). This clause is as follows:—

Where any person appears to have been in possession either by himself or through bis predepressors in title for 40 years or more consecutively, though he has no sale deed in his favour the Panchayat may execute a sale deed in his favour of the land for an amount equal to 6i% of the normal value of the land. Such sale deed shall not be regarded as affecting the right of any other pers

Click Here to Read the rest of this document