HARSARAN DASS Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings of respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

(2.) THE Gram Panchayat filed an application under Section 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for eviction of the petitioners from land in Rectangle No. 55, Killa No. 4/2, 7, 14, 17 an 24 on the ground that the said land vested in the Gram Panchayat, and, therefore, the Gram Panchayat was entitled to get it vacated. Respondent No. 3, the Gram Panchayat again filed an application on August 2,1979, under Section 7 of the Act. Respondents in the application, namely, Ram Saran Dass and Harsaran Dass (petitioners herein) took the plea that the Gram panchayat had earlier filed two applications for the same relief under Section 7(2) of the Act on the ground that the land was vested in the Gram Panchayat and, thus, applications were resisted by them on the ground that they had been in possession of the land even prior to January 26, 1950, and, therefore, they were not liable to be evicted from the land under Section 7(4) of the Act. They further contended that the earlier applications filed by the Gram panchayat had been dismissed and the orders of the Authorities thereunder operate as res judicata in the third application. The third application filed by the Gram Panchayat, is, therefore, not maintainable under law and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. The Collector by this order dated July 1, 1980, allowed the application of the Gram Panchayat and ordered eviction of the petitioners from the disputed land. In regard to earlier orders, it is only stated that the Assistant Collector decided only regarding possession of the land and not its title and the title remains with the Gram Panchayat. Therefore, the Gram panchayat was entitled to recovery of land. On appeal by Harsaran Dass, the Joint Director, Panchayats (exercising the powers of the Commissioner) held that the order dated April 15, 1975, was not placed on record and, therefore, it was not possible to conclude that the application filed by the Gram panchayat was barred by the principles of res judicata and there was no evidence to show that the land had been in possession of the appellant -petitioner No. 1 prior to January 26, 1950. He dismissed the appeal filed by Ram Saran Dass and accordingly confirmed the order of the Collector dated July 1, 1980, by his order dated April 9,1981.

(3.) I directed the Advocate -General to produce the record. Accordingly, the record has been produced. The said record shows that the order of the Collector, Fatehgarh Sahib, dated April 15, 1975, was placed on record and it was available in record. Therefore, it is not correct to say that the order was not available before the Commissioner for deciding the matter. From the order dated April 15, 1985, of the Assistant Collector, Fatehgarh Sahib, it is clear that the petitioners have already been declared to be in lawful possession of the land in Rectangle No. 55 Killa Nos. 4/2, 7, 14, 17 and 24 measuring about 36 kanals. Therefore, they cannot be evicted now from the land in dispute. That order dated April 15, 1975, has become final. The Gram Panchayat has not taken any steps to question the said order. It is not open to the Gram Panchayat to file another application for the same relief. The third application filed by the Gram Panchayat is, therefore, barred by the principles of res judicata. It has been held in Jee Rant v. State of Haryana, 1980 P.L.R. 103 that the general principles of res judicata will apply to the proceedings under Section 7 of the Act. The same position was explained in Inder Singh v. Gram Panchayat, (1986) 89 P.L.R. 379 and it was held that when earlier order under Section 7 of the Act has become final, no fresh application under Section 7 of the Act is maintainable and it amounts to review of the earlier order. Thus, I am of the opinion that the third application filed by the Gram Panchayat for the same relief regarding the eviction of the petitioners -Ram Saran Dass and Harsaran Dass is barred by the principles of res judicata and, therefore, not maintainable. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 erred in passing orders on the application of Gram Panchayat asking the eviction of the petitioners.