MELA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GRAM Panchayat village Chrason, respondent herein, had filed application before Collector, Patiala under Sections 7 and 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) for ejecting the petitioner from land measuring 46 Kanals on the ground that the said land being shamlat belonged to the Panchayat and the writ petitioner was in unauthorised possession of the same. The Collector vide order dated 17th May, 1982 accepted the application of the Gram Panchayat and after holding that land in dispute belonged to the Gram Panchayat, ordered the ejectment of the petitioner. The petitioner was unsuccessful in his appeal before the Joint Director, Panchayats who had dismissed their appeal on 31st May, 1985. The petitioner has assailed these two orders in the present writ petition.

(2.) IT may be observed here that prior to the introduction of Section 13 (B) in the Act on 15th April, 1976 Gram Panchayat had earlier also moved an application under Section 7 of the Act for the ejectment of the petitioner from the land in dispute on the ground that he was in unauthorised possession. That application of the Gram Panchayat was dismissed on 26th November, 1975. The order has not been placed on record on this case by either of the parties nor was it placed before the authorities below under the Act.

(3.) THE argument of the petitioner before the Authorities under the Act and before me also is that the second application under Section 7 which was filed after the introduction of Section 13 (B) in the Act, was barred by principles of res judicata. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner it had already been decided by the Assistant Collector under the Act on 26th November, 1975 that the land in dispute was not shamlat land and consequently did not vest in the Gram Panchayat and the petitioner was not in unauthorised possession of the same. As observed above, the order of 26th November, 1975 passed by the Assistant Collector has not been produced on record. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the pleadings of the Gram Panchayat in its application before the Assistant Collector filed under Section 11 read with Section 7 of the Act (copy Annexure P-1 to the writ petition) in which it was mentioned by the Gram Panchayat itself that Panchayat had filed before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Patiala, an application under Section 7 (2) of the Act which was dismissed on 26th November, 1975 on the ground that the shamlat in the village exceed 25% of the total area of the village and as such the disputed land did not vest in the Gram Panchayat. On the basis of this averment the petitioner's counsel submitted that it already stood settled between the parties prior to the introduction of Section 13 (B) that the land in dispute was not shamlat land. He further argued that once there was a judgment inter se between the parties that was binding on them and the second application for the same purpose was barred by res judicata. 3. Learned Counsel for the Gram Panchayat on the other hand argued that the finding of the Assistant Collector in the earlier application filed by the Gram Panchayat that the land in dispute was not shamlat and therefore did not vest in the Gram Panchayat, was a decision regarding the title of the land, which was given by the Assistant Collector, under Section 7 of the Act for which he had no jurisdiction. According to the learned counsel for the Gram Panchayat, the question of title could only be decided by Civil Court and not by Collector prior to 15th April, 1976 and therefore, any finding regarding the title of the land was wholly without jurisdiction and therefore, the question of res judicata would not arise. This was also in the pleadings before the Collector.