MAGHI RAM Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT VILLAGE CHIRWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners filed the present writ petition impugning the orders Annexures P-5 and P-6 passed by the Collector, Patiala, and Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab by which the Gram Panchayat of village Chirwa, Tehsil and District Patiala was held to be the owner of the land in dispute and it was further held that the petitioners were in illegal occupation of the land in dispute.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that the Halka Patwari made a report to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Patiala, that land measuring 21 bighas 18 biswas comprised in khasra Nos. 45, 46, 47 and 48 situated in village Chirwi was illegally occupied by Sarda, Sibhu and Maghi since Kharif, 1957. On the report of Halka Patwari notice under Section 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued to the petitioners to show cause as to why they be not evicted from the said land. While issuing notice to the petitioners, no notice was served upon the Gram Panchayat. However, the Assistant Collector First Grade, vide his order dated 21.10.1969 held that the petitioners are in possession of the suit land since 26.1.1950 and, therefore, the said land cannot be termed as Shamlat Deh. Resultantly, it was held that the petitioners are not in illegal occupation of the suit land and that the suit land does not fall within the definition of Shamlat Deh as defined in Section 2(d) of Act. On coming to know about the order passed by the Assistant Collector First Grade dated 21.10.1969, Gram Panchayat filed an application under Section 7 of the Act for ejectment of the petitioners. The Collector vide his order dated 27.7.1982 held that the land in dispute has already been held to be not falling within the definition of Shamlat Deh and that as the petitioners have already been held not to be in illegal occupation of the suit land, therefore, principles of res judicata are applicable and resultantly, the application filed by the Gram Panchayat was dismissed. It was held by the Collector while dismissing an application under Section 7 of the Act that the Gram Panchayat could file a separate suit with regard to the ownership if they so desire. Accordingly, an application under Section 11 read with Section 7 of the Act was filed by the Gram Panchayat against the petitioners before the Collector, Patiala. The Collector vide his order dated 23.11.1983 held that the present petitioners have not been able to prove their possession over the suit land since 1950. It was further held that as per the khasra girdawaris for the years 1962-63 to 1982-83, Gram Panchayat is the owner of the land in dispute. It was further held that the order Annexure P-2 passed by the Assistant Collector dated 21.10.1969 would not operate as res judicata as Gram Panchayat was not a party in that suit. It has been further held that as per jamabandi for the year 1981-82, Gram Panchayat has been shown to be the owner of the land in dispute and unauthorised possession of the petitioners have been recorded therein. Accordingly, an application under Section 11 read with Section 7 of the Act filed by the Gram Panchayat was accepted by the Collector, Patiala.

(3.) IN the writ petition, it has been averred that once the petitioners were held to be in possession over the suit land by the Assistant Collector vide order Annexure P-2 then the petitioners could not be held to be in unauthorised occupation of the same. It was further averred that the principle of res judicata would be fully applicable to the facts of the present case and as the application under Section 7 of the Act has already been decided by the Assistant Collector First Grade in favour of the petitioners, therefore, subsequent, application filed under Section 11 read with Section 7 of the Act filed by the Gram Panchayat would operate as res judicata. It has further been averred that against the order dated 21.10.1969 Annexure P-2, the application was filed by the Gram Panchayat on 11.8.1982 i.e. after more than 12 years and, therefore, the application was barred by limitation.