BALBIR KAUR Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT VILLAGE JALBEHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of C.Ws. Nos. 3371, 3647, 3648 of 1984, 2461, 1349, 1350, 1351, 1352, 1353, 1354, 2462 and 2844 of 1985, as the similar questions of law and facts are involved in all of them.

(2.) The facts giving rise to C.W.P. No. 3647 of 1984 may be stated as follows.

(3.) The Court of Sub-Judge 4th Class, Bassi, vide its judgment and decree dated 25th June, 1959 granted a declaration to the effect that the petitioner's father Chanan Singh along with the other persons was the owner of the land described in the plaint situate in village Jalbehra, tehsil Sirhind, district Patiala, and that it was not Shamilat land. The Gram Panchayat of village Jalbehra respondent No. 1 subsequently initiated proceedings under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') for the ejectment of Chanan Singh from the land in dispute. The Assistant Collector ordered the ejectment of Chanan Singh and the appeal filed by him before the Commissioner against the same was rejected. Thereupon, Chanan Singh filed C.W.P. No. 1693 of 1973 in this Court, which along with other writ petitions was allowed by a judgment dated 17th August, 1973. The main judgment is in C.W.P. No. 1679 of 1973 (Annexure P.2). The order of ejectment passed by the Assistant Collector and affirmed in appeal by the Commissioner was quashed. Chanan Singh has since died. The petitioners are his heirs who have now approached this Court through the present writ petition complaining that the Gram Panchayat respondent No. 1 has again instituted proceedings under Section 7 of the Act. The petitioners filed an application before respondent No. 2 raising an objection to the effect that the second application under Section 7 of the Act was barred by the principles of res judicata and that he had no jurisdiction to proceed with the application. Despite this objection he is proceeding with the application moved by respondent No. 1. The petitioners have prayed that the proceedings pending before respondent No. 2 on the application of respondent No. 1 under Section 7 of the Act be quashed.