Jhalla Ram vs Gram Sabha Kosli and another

S.P. Goyal, J.—The street in dispute is a Mind alley situate in village Kosli. The Gram Panchayat of this village issued a notice u/s 21 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952. (hereinafter called the Act) requiring the plaintiff to demolish the protection of his house which was alleged to be an encroachment on the public street. After considering the explanation of the plaintiff the Panchayat confirmed the notice and required him to remove the encroachment within the specified time. As that order was not complied with he was required to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- and a further recurring fine of Re. 1/- each day so long as the encroachment was not removed Both these orders were challenged in this suit on the ground that the street in dispute was not a public street and therefore, the action of the Gram Panchayat was wholly without jurisdiction. It was further pleaded that the recurring fine could not be imposed by the Gram Panchayat unless the trial was held in exercise of its criminal jurisdiction. The suit was contested by the Panchayat who reiterated that the street in dispute was a Public street and the orders passed were, therefore, within jurisdiction. Both the courts below have recorded a concurrent finding that the street in dispute was a public street and dismissed the suit. Still dissatisfied, the plaintiff has come up in this second appeal.

So far as the imposition of the recurring fine is concerned, the matter stands concluded by a Division Bench decision in Naurang Lal v. Gram Panchayat of village Gujarwas and another (1964) 66 P.L.R. 28, wherein it was held that it could not be imposed without a regular trial according to the procedure provided in the Act. Consequently the appeal to the extent of recurring fine has to be allowed.

As regards the question of the nature of the street both the Courts have recorded a concurrent finding on the basis of the circumstances and the oral evidence, led by the, parties. The Learned Counsel for the, appellant has challenged that finding on the ground that the street in dispute being a blind alley, there was an initial presumption that it was not a public street. Reliance for this proposition was placed on AIR 1928 709 (Lahore) But a close reading of this decision would show that no, such legal proposition was laid down in this decision and all that was said was that the Court may, in given circumstances, presume a blind alley to vest in the owners who owned the houses abutting therein. In the present case, as observed by the lower Appellate Court, it is not a small alley serving one or two persons. There was also no evidence led by the plaintiff that the villagers have no right to use this alley or that he has a right to prevent them from doing so. Both the Courts, therefore held that even if there was any initial presumption it stood, rebutted. That, apart, the words, ''public street'' as defined in the Act, means pathway, road, street, bridge, Jane, square, court alley or passage in a village which the public has a right to use arid includes the drains or gutters on either side and the land upto the defined boundary of any abutting property. This definition is quite comprehensive and would include even the blind alley so long as the public has, a right to use the same. As observed earlier there being no evidence that the inhabitants of the village had, no right to use this blind alley, there was no scope to hold that this was a private street vesting in the plaintiff and the other owners of the houses, situate in this street. The finding of the Courts below in this regard is consequently confirmed.

In view of the above finding this appeal is partially allowed and the order of the Panchayat imposing recurring fine is declared to be null and void. In all other respects, the decree of the lower Appellate Court is affirmed. In view of the partial success of the appeal the parties are left to bear their own costs.