Bapna, J. - (1.) 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 persons in or to or over the land. The Gram Panchayat agreed to grant the Patta, that is to execute the sale deed according to this rule. On appeal by the objectors, the Tehsil Panchayat was acting within its jurisdiction when it decided that the patta should not be granted. Whether there were good reasons for coming to that reason or not need not be discussed. The Tehsil Panchayat however had no jurisdiction to direct that Poona should hand over possession of the house to Lakhma, Shivlal add Kesa and that the Gram Panchayat should enforce compliance of this order. The Gram Panchayats or the Tehsil Panchayats have no jurisdiction to decide questions of title much less to grant a decree or to pass an order that one party should handover possession of a disputed property to another party. That part of the order of the Tehsil Panchayat was wholly without jurisdiction. Under the administrative powers of the Panchayat, it has power to impose fine in case of disobedience of any order under sec. 27. and the fine can be recovered by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under sec. 34. There does not appear to be any provision in the Rajasthan Panchayat Act which may authorise a Sub-Divisional Magistrate to enforce any order of the Gram Panchayat or Tehsil Panchayat or to have it enforced through the police. There is no reference in the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer to any law under which he may have purported to act when he directed the Station House Officer, Bali to dispossess Poona and to direct that the possession of the house be delivered to Lakhma, Shivlal and Kesa. The disputes regarding immovable property are not within the jurisdiction of the Panchayats and have to be dealt with by the civil courts established by the State, where the presiding officers, trained in law adjudicate on the claims of the parties. Under sec. 49 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act it has been provided that the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court fee Act, the Indian Evidence Act and the Indian Limitation Act shall not apply to the proceedings before the Panchayats save to the extent provided in the Act. The civil powers of the Gram Panchayat are within narrow limits and stated under section 39 of the Act. It could have been easily found by the Sub-Divisional Officer if he had cared to read the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act that the order of the Tehsil Panchayat was without jurisdiction and that he himself had no power to execute the same. It is a matter of regret that the Executive Officer concerned, Mr. Gopal Das Kuvalia, R. A. S. , did not take the trouble to find out his own powers or the powers of the Tehsil Panchayat whose orders he wanted to have executed. As a result this petition is allowed, the order of the Tehsil; Panchayat directing to handover possession to Lakhma, Shivlal and Kesa is quashed and the Sub-Divisional Officer is directed to restore possession of the house to Poona or Ganeshmal as the case may be, who were dispossessed under his orders of 2. 12. 58. The petitioners Poona and Ganeshmal will receive one set of costs from Lakhma, Shivlal and Kesa. . ;