DEVI DITTA Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT UMRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 72, 73, 74, 75 and 76 of 1990. The facts as stated in Civil Writ Petition No. 72 of 1990 may be noticed.

(2.) The petitioner was granted land on lease for a period of 20 years in the year 1955. In spite of the fact that the period of lease had expired in 1975, the petitioner continued to remain in possession of the land. After the expiry of the lease in the year 1975, the Panchayat which had become the owner of the land moved an application under S. 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). During the pendency of this application, the Panchayat passed a resolution on 27/01/1977 in which it was contemplated that three acres of land be sold to each of the respective lessees so that the remaining land became available to the Panchayat. In pursuance to this resolution, the Assistant Collector vide order dated Nov. 11, 1977, order the application under S. 7 to be consigned to record. Ultimately, the proposal of the Panchayat for sale of land was annulled by the authorities under the Act. As a result, the Panchayat was unable to sell. the land. Copy of order dated Dec. 19, 1983 passed by the Director Panchayat communicating the annullment of the resolution of the Panchayat has been produced on the record as Annexure R1. Thereafter, the Gram Panchayat through the Social Education and Panchayat Officer moved a fresh application under S. 7 of the Act on 11/08/1988. Notice of this application was given to the present petitioner and after hearing him, the Assistant Collector by his order dated 9/03/1989 directed the ejectment of the petitioner from the land. An appeal to the Collector having failed, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present petition.

(3.) The orders passed by the Assistant Collector and Collector have been challenged on two grounds, namely (i) that the application under S. 7 was not competent as the question of title was involved and (ii) that the petition was also barred by the principles of res judicata.