Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHBAD
DESAI, J.
Kameshwara Singh
Versus
Bharat Koeri
Misc. Case No.201 of 1952
Decided On : 29-10-1952
PANCHAYATI RAJ ACT - S. 49, 84 - JURISDICTION OF PANCHAYATI ADALAT - SPECIAL BENCH - CONSTITUTION - DISPUTE BETWEEN PARTIES OF DIFFERENT CIRCLES - JURISDICTION OF SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER TO CONSTITUTE SPECIAL BENCH - ORDER OF PANCHAYATI ADALAT WITHOUT JURISDICTION - QUASHING BY SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant started proceedings under the Land Revenue Act for correction of village records in a Tahsildars Court. The matter being a contested one went before the Sub-Divisional Officer who examined some witnesses and then transferred the case to the Panchayati Adalat of Nagwa. The case was heard by five Panchas (including the Sarpanch) in the Panchayati Adalat. The Panchayati Adalat fixed 25th February 1951, for judgment. On that date all the five Panchas were present and the Sarpanch invited opinions of the four Panchas. Two of them, namely Sarwashri Baijnath Prasad and Nageshwar Ram did not give their opinions while the other two (Sarvashri Alopi Nath and Sri Nath Singh) gave their opinion in favour of the applicant. The Sarpanch agreed with the opinion of the latter two Panchas and wrote out the judgment which was signed by Sarvasri Alopi Nath and Sri Nath Singh. The other two Panchas, who belong to village Bhagwanpur where the opposite party resides, did not sign the judgment, but on 4th March 1951, they wrote a dissenting judgment and handed it over to the Sarpanch who kept it on the record. The opposite party applied in revision against the majority judgment of the Panchayati Adalat and the Sub-Divisional Officer allowed the revision and set aside the judgment of the Panchayati Adalat as null and void.
Finding of the Court:
The Sub-Divisional Officer quashed the order not on the ground of any miscarriage of justice but simply on the ground that all the five Panchas had not discussed the merits of the case with one another and that two of them had not given their opinions. The Sub-Divisional Officer did not at all consider whether there resulted any miscarriage of justice.
Issues: 1. Whether the Sub-Divisional Officer had jurisdiction to quash the order of the Panchayati Adalat on the ground of illegality or irregularity not causing a miscarriage of justice? 2. Whether the order of the Panchayati Adalat was without jurisdiction? 3. Whether the applicant had other adequate remedies?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Under S.85 of the Panehayat Raj Act, the Sub-Divisional Officer can quash an order of a Panchayati Adalat only on the ground that there had been a miscarriage of justice. 2. The Panchayati Adalat had no jurisdiction to dispose of the proceedings as it was not a Special Bench constituted by the Sub-Divisional Officer under R.84 read with S.49(4) of the Panehayat Raj Act. 3. The applicant had other adequate remedies such as filing a regular suit for declaration or proceeding before the Magistrate under S.145, Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The application was dismissed.
2. Under S.85 of the Panehayat Raj Act, if there has been a miscarriage of justice in any proceeding under the Land Revenue Act the Sub-Divisional Officer may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, quash the order passed by the Panehayati Adalat. It is further laid down in the section that, except as aforesaid, an order passed by a Panehayati Adalat shall be final and not be open to appeal or revision in any court. This is the only provision under which a Sub-Divisional Officer can quash an order of a Panchayati Adalat in a proceeding under the Land Revenue Act. The proceeding started by the applicant for the correction of village records was a proceeding under the Land Revenue Act. Therefore, the Sub-Divisional Officer could quash the order passed by the Panchayati Adalat only on the ground that there had been a miscarriage of justice. He had no jurisdiction to quash it on any other ground; for instance, he had no jurisdiction to quash it on the ground of any illegality or irregularity not causing a miscarriage of justice. The Sub-Divisional Officer quashed the order not on the ground of any miscarriage of justice but simply on the ground that all the five Panchas had not discussed the merits of the case with one another and that two of them had not given their opinions. The Sub-Divisional Officer did not at all consider whether there resulted any miscarriage of justice.
Though he quashed the order on the ground that all the Panchas had not discussed the matter with one another and that two of them had not given their opinions, he did not discuss whether, or hold that, it amounted to a miscarriage of justice. Apparently whether the case resulted in a miscarriage of justice or not did not enter into the mind of the Sub-Divisional Officer at all and he quasned the order simply on the ground of a supposed irregularity or illegality. Clearly he acted without jurisdiction in quashing the order. The Panchas were not required by any law to hold a discussion among themselves about the judgment to be passed. The case was heard by all and at the end the Sarpanch had to take the opinions of the other four Panchas and that was done. If two of the Panchas did not give their opinions, it did not matter, because the passing of the judgment could not be stayed on that ground. It is to be noted that those
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
