GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 2334 of 1986 and Civil Writ Petition No. 5907 of. 1986 as common questions of fact and law are involved in the same. The facts as extracted from Civil Writ Petition No. 2334 of 1986 reveal that an area measuring 8 Kanals 2 Marlas comprised in Khasranos. 38 (1-0), 39 (5. 9) and 40 (1-13) situate in the revenue, estate of village Chouli, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Ambala was reserved by the petitioner Gram Panchayat for the common purposes of a school in the village during consolidation operations which took place in, the year 1954-55. This piece of land was leased in the year 1959 to one Bakhtawar Singh and after the lease of Bakhtawar Singh terminated by efflux of time, the land in question was again auctioned this time, however, to one Jhandu at the rate of Rs. 50/- per year. This, lease was sanctioned in favour of Jhandu on 21. 7. 1964 The case of petitioner-panchayat is that the income so derived was used for the benefit of the inhabitants of the village.

(2.) IN the year 1975-76, the petitioner-Panchayat filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for eviction of respondent Puran Singh in this petition and Gurdial Singh in Civil Writ Petition No. 5907 of 1986. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade after returning a finding that Gram Panchayat was owner and Puran Singh and Gurdial Singh respondents were in unauthorised occupation of the land in dispute ordered eviction of the latter. Aggrieved Puran Singh and Gurdial Singh carried an appeal before the Collector who vide his order dated 30 3. 1979 reversed the order passed by the Assistant Collector by holding that the petitioner was not the owner of the land in dispute. Inasmuch as the Gram Panchayat was not satisfied with the findings recorded by the Collector as the findings with regard to title could not be returned in summary proceedings under Section 7 which was in the sole domain of the Collector in a regular civil suit under Section 13-A of the Act, it brought two suits under Section 13-A of the Act on io. 2. !9'l A decree for a declaration that the Gram Panchayat is the owner of the land in dispute was prayed in the aforesaid suits. The matter was contested and after resultant trial, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade Jagadhri vide his order dated 30. 7. 1983 Annexure P-3 decreed the suit. Respondent No. 3 filed an appeal against the aforesaid judgment before the Collector. The appeal of respondent No. 3 succeeded resulting into remand of the case before the Assistant Collector to determine the three points indicated by the Collector. After remand, the Assistant Collector decided all the issues in favour of Gram Panchayat and the suit was again decreed vide judgment dated 31. 7. 1985. Once again, respondent No. 3 carried an appeal against the aforesaid judgment which was allowed on 18. 3. 1986, (Annexure P-5) It is this order which has been challenged by the Gram Panchayat in this Writ Petition.

(3.) THE petitions have been contested by respondent No. 3 and Gurdial Sngh and in the preliminary objection taken in the written statement, it has bee a pleaded that the petitioner has not disclosed that it had filed Civil Writ Petition No. 3242 in this Court in the year 1979 against the order dated 30. 3. 19"9 which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 16. 10. 1979. Not only the petitioner has concealed material fact but also the decision in the Writ Petition aforesaid operates as res judicata. It is also averred that the question as to ownership of the land was determined by the Additional Collector on 30. 3. 1979 and it was held that the panchayat could not prove itself to be the owner of the land to entitle it to seek ejectment. It is also averred that the provisions of the Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 are not applicable to the lands reserved under Section 18 of the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation) and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1949. On merits it is pleaded that the Gram Panchayat is not the owner of the land as the same was reserved during consolidation operations and is described as "shamlat Deh Hamb Hisas Paimana Haqiat". On account of entries in the revenue records, it is pleaded that the land vests with the proprietary body of the village, ft is also pleaded that the land in question has been in possession of the replying respondent and earlier to him his father Bakhtawar Singh was in possession since before the year, 1950, as is clearly borne out from the Jamabandi for the 1953-54. The possession of" the respondent and earlier of his father is described to be in the capacity of a co-sharer and since the possession was commensurate to the share of the respondent, the same was exempted binder Section 2 (g) (viii) of the Act. The fact that the land was earmarked for a school has been denied in the written statement. In so far as the background of the case culminating into order Annexure P-5 is concerned, the same is however, admitted.