RAM SAWROOP Vs. COMMISSIONER, GURGAON DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 4, resident of village Dhani Chittra filed an application under Section 7 of Punjab Village Common lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") seeking ejectment of the petitioner from the land in dispute on the ground that it is a Rasta. The petitioner claims to have constructed a house since the time of consolidation on the land in dispute. To this effect, he filed reply in response to said application. Assistant Collector Ist Grade rejected the application on 27.11.1991 by holding that respondent No. 4 could not prove the land to be a Rasta. Respondent No. 4 did not file any appeal against the said order. He, however, filed another application under Section 7 of the Act on 9.3.1994. This application was rejected on 6.6.2005 on the ground that the same is barred by principle of res judicata. This time, respondent No. 4 filed an appeal against this order before the Collector, who remanded the case back to Assistant Collector on 14.9.2005 with direction to decide the same afresh after hearing the parties. Assistant Collector then held the petitioner to be in unauthorisd occupation of the land. This order was passed after obtaining a report from Local Commissioner. Aggrieved against this order dated 28.2.2006, the petitioner filed an appeal before Collector which was dismissed on 26.7.2006. Revision was also dismissed by the Commissioner on 8.10.2008. These orders are now under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) THE counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no material on the basis of which the finding has been returned and the ejectment of the petitioner ordered. He would further contend that the second application filed by respondent No. 4 was barred by principle of res judicata. In support, he has placed reliance on Lal Chand v. State of Haryana and others, 1983 PLJ 229 and Shri Naurang Singh (died) now through His L.Rs. v. The State of Punjab and others, 1997(1) PLJ 61.

(3.) SINCE the spot inspection has been made the basis of the finding, the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that finding has been returned without any material cannot be accepted. The proceedings under Section 7 of the Act are summary in nature. While deciding this application, no issues are framed to return a finding. In the cases of Lal Chand and Naurang Singh (supra), a view is taken that Gram Panchayat would be debarred from reagitating same cause of action on principle of equitable estoppel, but in Rama Sarup and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2006 (4) RCR (Civil) 350, it is held that doctrine of res judicata is not applicable to summary proceedings unless statute expressly applied to such orders. It is observed that dismissal of earlier petition under Section 7 does not bar subsequent petitions. While taking this view, reliance is placed on the case of Inder Singh and another v. The Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others, 1997 (1) PLJ 52, where it is held that doctrine of res judicata is not applicable to summary proceedings. It is further observed that the authorities under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act are not civil courts nor petition or a plaint and even no issues are framed nor tried as a civil suit. It is accordingly held that the order passed by the authorities without any elaborate trial like in a suit but in a summary manner, principles of res judicata are not applicable. In view of this authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it would not be possible to say that the second application filed under Section (SC)7 of the Act would be barred by principle of res judicata. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.