LAWS(SC)-2000-9-2

GRAM PANCHAYAT OF VILLAGE NAULAKHA Vs. UJAGAR SINGH

Decided On September 27, 2000
GRAM PANCHAYAT OF VILLAGE NAULAKHA Appellant
V/S
UJAGAR SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) This appeal is preferred by the Gram Panchayat against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 12-10-98 in CWP No. 11569 of 1997. The appellant filed an application under Section 7 of the Village Common Land (Regulations) Act, 1961 and an order was passed in its favour by the Collector on 12-7-88. The Collector found that an earlier decree obtained by the respondents against the appellant for injunction on 10-6-75 was a decree obtained by the respondents in collusion with the then Sarpanch and was not binding on the Panchayat in the present proceedings. On appeal by the respondents before the Development Commissioner, the said judgment was affirmed on 13-3-97 upholding the plea of collusion. The respondents then moved the High Court by way of a writ petition and the writ petition was allowed by the High Court on 12-10-98. The learned Judges of the High Court did not go into the question of collusion or the merits of the case but felt bound by a decision of a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Gram Panchayat, Village Bathoi Kalan, Patiala v. Jagar Ram, AIR 1991 Punj and Har 159 which judgment was said to have been followed by another Division Bench on 28-1-98. The Full Bench judgment laid down that the statutory authorities under the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulations) Act, 1961 could not ignore an earlier decree against the Panchayat on the ground of its being collusive and fraudulent, unless the Panchayat had first filed an independent suit to set aside the said decree or sought declaration that the decree was collusive or fraudulent.

(3.) In the present case, learned counsel for the appellant submits that admittedly the earlier suit was filed by the respondents against the Panchayat for injunction on 16-5-75 and that the Sarpanch then conceded the case of the respondents and a decree was passed on 10-6-95 within 24 days of the filing of the suit and that the said decree was, in the face of these facts, obviously collusive and that it was not necessary to drive the appellant to a separate suit to establish that the said decree was collusive. Learned counsel contends that the Full Bench in Jagar Ram's case (supra) has laid down a wrong principle. In order to raise a plea of collusion of an earlier suit, it is not necessary to file an independent suit and obtain another decree as a condition precedent. Counsel submits that, in the facts of this case, the collusion is obvious and the Collector and the Appellate authority were having the necessary jurisdiction to decide that the earlier decree was collusive. The earlier decree, being collusive, cannot operate as res judicata.