RAM CHANDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Gram Panchayat, Madlauda, District Panipat, respondent No. 5, instituted an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, on July 12. 1989, against the petitioner for his ejectment from 60 kanals 2 Marias of Shamlat Deh owned by the former. The application was contested. Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Panipat, by order Annexure P-1 dated April 29, 1991, dismissed the application with a finding that though eviction was sought from 60 Kanals 2 Marias, in fact the petitioner was found to be in unauthorised possession over only a portion of Khasra No. 253, which was 1 Kanal and odd. Appeal against the said order filed by the Gram Panchayat was dismissed for a similar reason by the Collector by order Annexure P-1/a dated January 21,1992. The learned Collector in the concluding paragraph of his order Annexure P-1/a observed that the Gram Panchayat did not get demarcation of the land in question carried out, nor filed a site plan indicating the particular portion of khasra No. 253 in which the opposite party was in unauthorised possession. The appeal was dismissed and it was directed that the Gram Panchayat should get the demarcation of the land carried out, get the man prepared and file a fresh eviction application against the opposite party, if so advised. Thereafter the Gram Panchayat got the demarcation done and instituted a fresh application on March 17,1992, which was disposed of by Assistant Collector Ist Grade by order Annexure P-2 dated October 8, 1993. It was observed in the order that on the earlier occasion when the Gram Panchayat had filed an eviction application, the matter had not been decided on merits but the same had been disposed of with the observation that the Gram Panchayat should submit the demarcation report along with a fresh application. For this reason it was held that the previous decision did not operate as res-judicata. It was further held by Assistant Collector Ist Grade that the petitioner herein was in unauthorised occupation but proceeded to add that he had been in possession for "so many years by constructing four walls "including two rooms, kitchen and brick-kiln and that the aforesaid construction was not proving to be an obstruction in any passage. He, therefore, concluded "therefore, in the interest of justice I do not consider it suitable to evict the respondent. Respondent will pay compensation to the panchayat on the rates fixed by the Collector. The respondent should get fixed the compensation of the disputed land within a reasonable time and pay it to the panchayat otherwise he will be deemed to be evicted from the land". The Gram Panchayat felt aggrieved by the order and accordingly instituted an appeal to the Collector, which was allowed and the direction given by Assistant Collector 1st Grade that the land be sold to the petitioner on the rates as may be fixed by the Collector was set aside and the eviction of the petitioner was ordered. The order is Annexure P-5 dated January 25,1994. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order of the Collector preferred an appeal to the Commissioner, which was dismissed by order Annexure P-6 dated February 16,1994, on the ground that the question whether a revision against the order of the Collector was competent under the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act was pending before the High Court and therefore, the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain any revision, and in this view of the matter he dismissed the revision for want of jurisdiction. The petitioner has assailed the order of eviction Annexure P-5 passed by the Commissioner dismissing his revision petition.

(2.) WRITTEN statement has been filed both by the official respondents 1 to 4 and 6 as well as the Gram Panchayat respondent No. 5. Replication to the written statement filed by the Gram Panchayat has been filed by the petitioner along with some additional documents annexed therewith.

(3.) MR . R. N. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, conceded, at the outset that he does not press the plea that the decision of the earlier application for eviction operated as res judicata. Apart from the above concession, a perusal of the orders shows that the earlier eviction application was in respect of 60 kanals odd. It was found that prima facie the petitioner was only in unauthorised occupation of 1 Kanal and odd Marias, which had not been specified. The panchayat was, therefore, directed to have the demarcation carried out and file a proper site plan indicating the land of which the petitioner was in unlawful occupation. The Gram Panchayat got the land demarcated and along with the proper site plan indicating unlawful occupation of the petitioner in a part of khasra No. 253 filed a fresh eviction application. The application was dismissed with a direction by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade and the direction part was set aside by the Collector in appeal, as already indicated.