RAM DIA Vs. COMMISSIONER AMBALA DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ram Dia has a Bara which abuts on a street, which is stated to be 16-1/2 feet wide and is stated to have been provided in consolidation proceedings about 30 years back. Ram Dia had been approaching his Bara from the street. Ram Dia and his father filed an application on 7th November, 1975 before the Assistant Collector under section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the 'the Act') for removal encroachment by Ratna to the extent of about 5 Marlas from that street, which obstructs their passage. Vide order dated 14th July, 1976 the Assistant Collector ordered the ejectment of Ratna after recording finding that the street belonged to Gram Panchayat and his possession was unauthorised. The appeal filed by Ratna was dismissed by the Collector on 4th May, 1977.

(2.) Thereafter Ratna filed a declaratory suit in Civil Court on 24th October, 1977 against Ram Dia, his father and Gram Panchayat claiming that he was the owner and that it was not part of street and did not vest in Gram Panchayat and, therefore, the order of the Assistant Collector which was maintained in appeal was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. The trial Court dismissed the suit on merits. However, in appeal before the District Judge, Ratna withdrew the appeal and the suit on 29th August, 1981 on the plea that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to determine the matter and it could be determined only under the Act.

(3.) Thereafter Ratna filed suit on 5th October, 1981, before the Assistant Collector First grade under Section 13-A of the Act to have the title of the property in dispute settled. In this suit Ram Dia was not made a party and when he came to know of the filing of suit, he made an application before the Assistant Collector to be impleaded as a party. A categorical averment was made that Ratna was in collusion with the Sarpanch of the Panchayat, and, therefore, he may obtain some collusive decision behind his back and as such his presence was necessary. The Assistant Collector allowed the application by order 5th April, 1982 (Annexure P.1). Against the aforesaid order Ratna went in revision before the Commissioner who by order dated 31st March, 1983 (Annexure P.2) accepted the same and set aside the order of the Assistant Collector on the reasoning that the suit is only between Ratna and Gram Panchayat and Ram Dia has no concern with the same. We have gone through the order of the learned Commissioner. He has not referred to the earlier litigation between the parties which took place in two different forums. Once the suit before the Civil Court was withdrawn to move the authority under section 13-A in fact the same plaint had to be presented before the Authority under the Act. Moreover, the two earlier orders under the Act i.e. of the Assistant Collector and of the Collector in appeal in proceedings under section 7 of the Act were obtained by Ram Dia, any subsequent orders passed under section 13-A would not affect the rights of Ram Dia to have the encroachment made on the public street removed or to pass therefrom. Therefore, looking at the case from any angle the learned Commissioner erred in law in interfering in revisional jurisdiction and that too, at a stage when the main matter was still pending before the Assistant Collector.