AJMER SINGH Vs. JOINT DIRECT PANCHAYATS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 2727, 2854, 2881 and 4533 to 4536 all of 1983 and 1739, 2420 and 2523 all of 1985, as common questions of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions. Facts are being taken from C.W.P. No. 2727 of 1983.

(2.) THIS petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders Annexure P -1 and P -2, passed under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), ordering ejectment of the petitioner from the land comprising Rectangle No. 40 Khasra No. 1 (0 -40 -47), 2(0 -40 -47), 9(0 -40 -47), 10(0 -40 -47), 11(0 -40 -47), 12(0 -40 -47), 19(0 -40 -47), 20(0 -40 -47), Rectangle No. 41 Killa Nos. 5(0 -39 -46), 6(0 -40 -47), 14(0 -13 -15), 15(0 -40 -47), 16(0 -40 -47) and 17(0 -40 -47) situated in revenue estate of village Mardhanheri, Tehsil and District Patiala.

(3.) GRAM Panchayat did not challenge the order of the Commissioner by filing a writ petition in the High Court. It started recovery proceedings against the petitioner on the assumption that the petitioner was in an unauthorised possession of the land and was, therefore, liable to pay damages at the rate of 20 times of usual rent. These recovery proceedings were challenged by the petitioner in this Court by filing C.W.P. No. 4519 of 1980, which was admitted for hearing and the recovery proceedings were stayed. In the meanwhile, the Gram Panchayat again filed an application under Section 7 of the Act for ejectment of the petitioner. Petitioner resisted the application on the ground that in view of the order of the Commissioner and the pendency of the writ petition (C.W.P. No. 4519 of 1980) in this Court, the application was not maintainable and that the Gram Panchayat did not place any document on record to show that the land had vested in the Gram panchayat under the provisions of the Act. Both the objections raised by the petitioner were not accepted by the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Patiala, exercising the powers of the Collector under the Act. It was held that the Gram Panchayat was the owner of the land and the petitioner was in an unauthorised possession of the land belonging to the Gram Panchayat and, therefore, liable to be ejected. Against this order, petitioner preferred an appeal which was also rejected by the impugned order Annexure P -3, by the Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab, exercising the powers of the Commissioner. Aggrieved against orders Annexure P -2 and P -3, present writ petition has been filed, interalia, on the grounds that the second application under Section 7 of the Act was not maintainable that the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner in the earlier proceedings holding that the land in dispute was not shamilat deh was res judicata between parties and that the observations made by the learned Commissioner in the earlier proceedings that it would be open to the Gram Panchayat to file a fresh application under Section 7 of the Act were without jurisdiction because the learned Commissioner had recorded a categorical finding in his order holding that the land does not vest in the Gram Panchayat.