MALKIAT SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated May 9, 1975, dismissing R.S.A. No. 169 of 1974, filed by the appellants.

(2.) Bhagwan Singh deceased, father of the appellants, owned 216 bighas 3 biswas of land in village Hardaspura, district Sangrur. The Collector, Agrarian, Barnala, vide order dated February 23, 1961, declared his land measuring 3 standard acres (18 bighas 8 biswas) surplus. Bhagwan Singh filed an appeal but failed. He then filed a revision which was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner on January 31, 1963. Bhagwan Singh thereafter filed a civil writ in the High Court challenging the orders of the Collector, Agrarian, and the Financial Commissioner, which was dismissed after hearing the parties on August 12, 1966. Bhagwan Singh then filed a civil suit for a declaration that the order of the Collector, Agrarian, and of the Financial Commissioner were null and void and were not binding on him. The main ground taken by him in the suit was that the valuation of his land had been wrongly assessed especially when it was assessed on the basis of jamabandi for the year 1956-57 and not on the basis of khasra girdawari for kharif 1956. The suit was contested by the State of Punjab and it was pleaded inter alia that the suit was not cognizable by the Civil Court and was barred by the principle of res judicata. The learned trial Judge found that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case and further it was barred by res judicata. The suit was consequently dismissed. Bhagwan Singh filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Barnala, vide order dated October 23, 1973, on the ground that the suit was barred by res judicata. Bhagwan Singh thereafter filed a regular second appeal which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated May 9, 1975. It is against this order that the present letters patent appeal is directed.

(3.) It is admitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the plea of wrong valuation was available to the appellants or their father Bhagwan Singh before the Commissioner, the Financial Commissioner and the High Court in the writ proceedings. He has, however, contended that this specific plea was not taken nor decided by the High Court in the writ proceedings and, therefore, irrespective of the fact that the writ was dismissed by the High Court after hearing the parties, the decision therein could not operate as res judicata in the civil suit. We find no merit in this contention. The fact remains that the order of the Collector, Agrarian, declaring the area of Bhagwan Singh surplus was challenged in the High Court on the writ side and the interested parties were heard. All the points raised on behalf of the landowner were considered by the High Court and ultimately his writ petition was dismissed. The points which could be urged on behalf of the landowner and were not urged shall be taken to have been considered and decided against him. The decision of the High Court in the civil writ, therefore, shall operate as res judicata for the purposes of the civil suit filed by Bhagwan Singh on the same cause of action.