BANT SINGH Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR PANCHAYATS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gram Panchayat Badauchhi Kalan filed an application under section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against Nagahia Singh to seek his ejectment from the Shamlat Deh land. The application was opposed and it was pleaded that he was in possession as a landowner in the village, was entitled to keep possession of the same as a landowner not being in excess of his share. After evidence, it was concluded that he was entitled to retain 7 Kanals 2 Marlas as a landowner. On this basis he was found to be in excess possession of 9 Kanals 18 Marlas for which order of ejectment was passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Patiala, dated 22nd March, 1968, copy Annexure P-1. In 1975 the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat filed a fresh application under section 7 of the Act against Bant Singh son of Nagahia Singh, i.e. the son of the person against whom order Annexure P-1 was obtained, to seek ejectment from Shamlat Deh land. He contested the application and stated that he had been in possession of the land in dispute since the times of his ancestors and being Khewatdar (landowner) was entitled to retain possession of Shamlat Deh land due to his share and the land in his possession did not exceed that share. He also referred to the earlier decision of March 22, 1968 wherein this matter had been decided. Ultimately he contended that an area measuring 7 Kanals 2 Marlas was allowed to them under the previous order and he had no objection if any order is passed about the remaining land. The Assistant Collector vide his order dated 23rd November, 1976 Annexure P-2, proceeded to hold that Nagahia Singh was proved to be in occupation of 2 Bighas 3 Biswas of land during the year 1950-51 which is equal to 4 Kanals 5 Marlas and, therefore, ordered that but for 4 Kanals 5 Marlas, he should be ejected from the remaining land. On appeal, the Collector upheld the aforesaid order vide his order dated 3rd September, 1979, Annexure P-3. Bant Singh has come to this Court in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The main contention raised before us is that under the Act there is no power to review with the Assistant Collector and the order Annexure P-2 amounts to review of the earlier order Annexure P-1. We find merit in this contention. A reading of order Annexure P-1 shows that it was found that Nagahia Singh was entitled to retain 7 Kanals 2 Marlas out of the Shamlat Deh land as a landowner with regard to his share and the remaining land in his possession was found to be in excess of which ejectment order was passed. If the Gram Panchayat was aggrieved against the same, it could have gone up on appeal but this course was not followed. Therefore, the earlier order under section 7 of the Act became final between the parties and could not be reopened by filing a fresh application under the same provisions. Therefore, the order Annexure P-2 clearly amounts to review and for the same reasons, the order Annexure P-3 also cannot be allowed to stand.

(3.) Before the Collector in appeal, point was raised that earlier proceedings which culminated in order Annexure P-1, were in regard to different land, whereas the present proceedings were with regard to another piece of land. No such point was raised before the Assistant Collector who merely proceeded to decide the case on the basis that Nagahia Singh was proved to be in possession of 4 Kanals 5 Marlas of land during the year 1950-51 and, therefore, he could be allowed to retain this much area only. It is true that there is difference in Khasra numbers and that may be due to consolidation proceedings because earlier area is given in Bighas and Biswas and the present area is given in Kanals and Marlas. If any question of title arises, that can well be agitated under section 11 of the Act, but it is certainly not permissible to file fresh proceedings under section 7 of the Act to take up the same matter.