- (1.) Jagan Nath, plaintiff-respondent, filed a suit in Gram Panchayat, Kookanet for the recovery of Rs. 200/- as damages on the basis that there was an agreement between the present petitioners and himself before the respectables of the village in which Bir Singh petitioner had agreed to open the Kuhl and not to obstruct Jagan Nath, respondent to irrigate his land measuring 7 kanals 13 marlas, but the petitioners had forcibly closed the Kuhl without any justifiable causes. The Gram Panchayat allowed his application and awarded him the compensation of Rs. 200/- vide its order dated 26th March, 1973. Dissatisfied by the order of the Gram Panchayat, Bir Singh and others petitioners, filed a revision before the Senior Sub-Judge, Hoshiarpur, who after hearing the parties dismissed the revision petition and confirmed the order of the Gram Panchayat. It is against these orders of the Gram Panchayat and the Senior Sub Judge. Hoshiarpur that the present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the present petitioners.
(2.) Mr. Malook Singh, learned counsel for the present petitioners, contended that the Panchayat had no jurisdiction to award the compensation of Rs. 200/- to the respondent. His argument is that the compensation has been awarded under section 52(1)(c) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and that according to the respondent's own showing no crop had yet been sown and there was no damage to any moveable property and therefore no compensation could be awarded under section 52(1)(c) of the Act. Section 52 is reproduced below :- "52. Powers. -(1) Notwithstanding any other law for the time being in force and subject to the other provisions of this Act, the jurisdiction to try any of the suits mentioned hereunder shall vest in a Gram Panchayat- (a) suits for the recovery of moveable property or the value of such property. (b) suits for money or goods due on contracts, or price thereof. (c) suits for compensation for wrongfully taking or injuring moveable property, and (d) suits mentioned in clauses (j),(k),(1) and (n) of sub-section (3) of section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. (2) The pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of a Panchayat with enhanced powers shall be five hundred rupees in respect of suits falling under clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) and two hundred rupees in respect of suits falling under clause (d) of the said sub-section. The pecuniary limits of jurisdiction of other Panchayats shall be two hundred rupees in respect of suit falling under clause (a), (b) and (c) of sub section (1) and one hundred rupees in respect of suits falling under clause (d) of the said sub-section" A reading of this section shows that the Panchayat has jurisdiction to try any of the suits mentioned in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) of section 52. Clause (a) deals with the suits for the recovery of moveable property or the value of such property. clause (b) deals with the suits for money or good due on contracts of price thereof. Clause (c) deals with suits for compensation for wrongfully taking or injuring moveable property and clause (d) deals with the suits mentioned in clauses (j), (k), (1) and (n) of sub-section (3) of section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. It is evident from a reading of clause (c) that the compensation could be awarded under this clause only for wrongfully taking or injuring the moveable property. There is nothing on the record to show that any injury was done to the moveable property or the moveable property was wrongfully taken. According to respondent's own showing it is clear that no crop was yet sown. His grievance is that an agreement was reached between the petitioners and himself on 13th May 196, according to which he was entitled to the irrigation of his land from the Kuhl which was in existence since 1950. Since the present petitioners forcibly closed the Kuhl in Mach 1967, the respondent could not sow paddy crop in his land measuring 7 kanals 13 marlas. Thus he had suffered a loss of Rs. 200/-. As according to respondent's own showing no crop was sown, no compensation could be awarded to him under clause (c) of sub section (1) of section 52 of the Act. This clause is applicable only if some damage is caused to moveable property. However, the present case comes under clause (b) under which suits for money or goods due on contracts, or price thereof are maintainable before the Panchayat. An agreement was arrived at between the petitioners and the respondent on 13th May, 1967 before the respectable of the village by which the respondent was entitled to irrigate his land from the Kuhl. Hence the case falls under clause (b) of sub section (1) of section 52 of the Act. In a similar situation, it was observed in Hari Chand and others v. Sub Judge 1st Class, Garhshankar and others,1970 PunLR 141 as under :- "When the framers of Section 52 of the Gram Panchayat Act were using the words 'suits for money', they were using them in the same sense in which this expression has been used in the Code of Civil Procedure; and even on first principles, the claim is a claim to money. Arrears of rent is nothing but a debt due from the tenant to the landlord and the claim to recover that debt would naturally be a claim to recover money. It is no doubt true that suit for recovery of rent have been classed as "Small Cause Suits" under the Small Causes Courts Act, but they do not cease to be suits for money. Even otherwise section 52 of the Act overides all other enactments and confers jurisdiction on the Gram Panchayat to the limit of Rs. 500/- so far as money claims are concerned." Although in this case the suit was for the realisation of arrears of rent, yet the suit was got decreed by the landlord against the tenant for the arrears of rent and the same objection was taken as has been taken in the present case that the Panchayat cannot adjudicate upon such matters as it is not a suit for money and in that situation it was held that the arrears of rent is nothing but a debt due from the tenant to the landlord and it clearly comes within the definition of "money" and the Panchayat can adjudicate upon such a dispute under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 52. In the present case since the contractual obligation was not discharged by the petitioners and they did not allow the respondent to irrigate his land from the Kuhl in dispute, the respondent was entitled to bring a suit for compensation of the loss which he had suffered for non sowing the paddy crop I am of the view that when the parties themselves agree before the respectables of the village to do certain things and to discharge certain obligations they cannot be allowed to resile from such undertakings. In such petty disputes in the village the respectables of the village and the members of the Panchayat know better than the officers of other forums and that a substantial justice can only be imparted by the persons in the village who are in the know of real facts. The agreement as earlier observed, was reached between the petitioners and the respondent and the same was signed before the respectables of the village. But the petitioners later on refused the respondent to irrigate his land from the Kuhl and the poor person has been dragged upto the High Court.
(3.) No other point is urged.;