INDER SINGH Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT OF VILLAGE ACHAL, TEHSIL NABHA DISTRICT PATIALA, THROUGH ITS SARPANCH POORAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of S.A Os. No 5 and 6 of 1985 as the question involved is common in both the cases.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to S A O No. 5 of 1985 are that Plaintiff Inder Singh filed a suit for declaration that he it the sole owner in exclusive possession of the suit land and the orders of D D.P.O i e. Collector Patiala passed in the year 1980 dated July 26, 1980, Exhibit P. 10 against his son Ugar Singh are illegal, without jurisdiction and void qua his rights. He also claimed permanent injunction on account of consequential relief restraining the Defendant Gram Panchayat from dispossessing him from the suit land It was alleged in the plaint that earlier proceedings under Section 7 of the village Common Lands Act were taken on behalf of the Gram Panchayat be fore the Assistant Collector and there the application was dismissed vide order dated July 18, 1968, Exhibit P 11 and it was held therein that Inder Singh is in exclusive possession of the land since 2002 to 2004 BK , and as such he is in possession of the land in dispute prior to January, 190(sic), and is not liable to eviction - According to the Plaintiff, in view of the said order no proceedings under Section 7 of said Act could be taken again against his son Ugar Singh by the Collector/D.D.P.O. is he had no jurisdiction to entertain any such application in view of the earlier order Exhibit p. 11. Thus the order passed by the Collector dated July 25, 1980, Exhibit P. 10 was without jurisdiction and ineffective qua his rights. The suit was con -tested inter alia on the ground that the earlier order dated July 18, 1968, Exhibit (sic). 11 was passed against Inder Singh whereas the present order Exhibit P. 10 dated July 25, 1930, has been passed against his son Ugar Singh who was in illegal possession of the suit land which vests in the Gram Panchayat and the order was, therefore, legal and binding on the Plaintiff as well.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the order of the Collector Exhibit P 10 was an order without jurisdiction in view of the earlier order passed by the Assistant Collector under Section 7 of the Act Exhibit P. 11 dated July 18, 1968. Thus the only form to challenge the same was the civil court and not the appeal as provided under the said Act. Moreover, argued the learned Counsel, Section 13 of the said Act barring the jurisdiction of the civil court was not at all attracted in the present case as there was no dispute to be decided in the suit as to whether the suit land is Shamilat Deh or not According to the learned Counsel, that matter was already decided by the Assistant Collector i e. Competent Authority under Section 7 vide order Exhibit P. 11. Since the impugned order Exhibit P. 10 passed by the Collector was without jurisdiction, it was only the civil court which could entertain the suit and declare the same to be illegal, void, and without jurisdiction. In support of his contention he referred to Nakul and Ors. v. Lal Singh, 1984 P. L. J. 559. Kala Singh v. Commissioner. Hissar Division, 1984 P. L. J. 169, Jee Ram v. State of Haryana, 1980 P. L. J. 103 and Bant Singh v. The Joint Director Panchayats etc, 1984 P. L. J. 581. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that reading Sections 11, 12 and 13 of the said Act together, it is evident that the order of the Collector under Section 7 is final unless it is set aside in appeal. The only forum, according to the learned Counsel, to the Plaintiff was to challenge the said order in appeal or to approach the Collector itself under Section 11 for getting his title decided under the Act itself. In support of his contention, he referred to Gram Sebha Balad Kalan and Anr. v. Sarwan Singh and other, 1984 P. L. J. 311, and Garam Panchayat (Nagar Panchayat) Halalia and another's v. Babu Singh, 1983 P. L. J. 13.