AZAMU Vs. THE COLLECTOR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE controversy raised here is with regard to the applicability of the principle of res judicata to proceedings under Section 7 of The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as applicable to the State of Haryana (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) THE facts relevant to this matter are that the ejectment of the Petitioner -Azamu was sought by the Gram Panchayat/Panchayat from the land held by him in proceeding under Section 7 of the Act. This application was dismissed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sonepat by his order of December 2, 1968 (Annexure P.3). Another application of the Gram Panchayat for ejectment of the Petitioner from the same land was again dismissed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sonepat, by his order of July 30, 1970 (Annexure P.4). Later, on September 22, 1975, proceedings under Section 7 of the Act were again initiated against the Petitioner in respect of the same land, this time at the instance of Hoshiar Singh and other inhabitants of the village. These proceedings culminated in an order of ejectment being passed against the Petitioner by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, on February 9, 1976 (Annexure P.l). On appeal, the order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, was upheld by the Collector, Sonepat, by his order of September 13, 1976 (Annexure P.2).

(3.) MR . P.S. Kadian, appearing for the Advocate General, Haryana, sought to wriggle out of the bar of res judicata by seeking to contend that the parties to the proceedings before the Assistant Collector culminating in two orders Annexures P.1 and P.2 were not the same as those in the earlier proceedings wherein the orders Annexures P.3 and P.4 had been passed. The reference here was to the fact that in the earlier proceedings namely those which culminated in the orders Annexures P.3 and P.4, the proceedings have been taken against the Petitioner at the instance of Gram Panchayat whereas in the impugned orders the party was not the Gram Panchayat but some inhabitants of the village. The argument thus was that as the parties were different, the principles of res judicata did not apply in this case even though the land concerned was the same.