DAULAT RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Daulat Ram petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the orders dated 29.9.1976 Annexure P. 3 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Naraingarh, and dated 1.8.1978 Annexure P. 4 passed by the Collector, Ambala, in appeal. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade ordered ejectment of the petitioner from the land comprising Khasra Nos. 11/3/1, 3/2/1 and 9/2 on the ground that the said land belonged to the Panchayat and the petitioner was in unauthorised possession of the same. Penalty under Section 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Haryana Amendment Act, 1974, (hereinafter called 'the Act') for Kharif 1975 at the rate of Rs. 600/- per acre in respect of the land measuring 3 Kanals 19 Marlas plus costs of Rs. 60/- were also imposed on him.

(2.) The proceedings were initiated before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade on the basis of an application moved by Naurata respondent No. 3 under Section 7(2) of the Act, who alleged that the petitioner and his son Arjan were in unauthorised possession of the Panchayat land bearing Khasra Nos. 11/2/2/1, 2/2/2, 3/1, 3/2/1 and 9/2 measuring 4 Kanals 16 Marlas situate in village Chhajal Majra. The authorities, however, found that the petitioner was not in occupation of the land bearing Khasra Nos. 11/2/2/1 and 2/2/2 but in respect of the rest of the land the order of ejectment as mentioned above was passed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that earlier also the Gram Panchayat of village Chhajal Majra had filed an application under Section 7(2) of the Act against the petitioner but the same was dismissed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Naraingarh, vide his order dated 14.1.1971, Annexure P. 1. Later on, Naurata respondent No. 3 also filed an application under Section 7(2) of the Act before the Assistant Collector and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 23.6.1977, Annexure P. 2. He accordingly contends that the orders Annexures P. 1 and P. 2 operate as res judicata and for that reason fresh proceedings under section 7(2) of the Act could not be taken against the petitioner and as such the impugned orders Annexures P. 3 and P. 4 cannot be sustained.