Page 1

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  

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 2

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.  

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 3

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.”  

Page 4

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  

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 5

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  

a month from today.

Page 6

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.