Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.S.Liberhan and M.L.Singhal JJ.
Naurang Singh (Died)
Versus
State Of Punjab
Civil Writ Petition No. 2069 of 1986,
Decided On : AUGUST 20, 1996
PUNJAB VILLAGE COMMON LANDS (REGULATION) ACT, 1961 - SECTION 7 - RES JUDICATA - EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL - LOCUS STANDI OF GRAM PANCHAYAT - VESTING OF LAND - ACQUISITION OF LAND BEFORE 26.1.1950 - CIVIL COURT JURISDICTION - SECTION 11 - SECTION 12 - SECTION 13 - AMENDMENT ACT 19 OF 1976 - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The Gram Panchayat sought to be put in possession of the land in dispute under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The Assistant Collector dismissed the petition observing that the petitioner had purchased the land prior to the enforcement of the Act and was in continuous cultivating possession. The Gram Panchayat again sought possession under the same provisions in 1976 and 1981, but the petitions were dismissed. The Gram Panchayat then filed a petition under Section 11 read with Section 7 of the Act, claiming a declaration of title. The Commissioner remanded the case back to the Assistant Collector for a decision on the question of title. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the remand order, contending that the earlier orders operated as res judicata or equitable estoppel, and that the Gram Panchayat had no locus standi to file a petition under Section 11 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the earlier orders dismissing the Gram Panchayat's petitions for possession operated as res judicata or equitable estoppel, barring the Gram Panchayat from relitigating the same cause of action. The Court also held that the Gram Panchayat had locus standi to file a petition under Section 11 of the Act to get its title determined, but only prospectively. The Court further held that land acquired before 26.1.1950 by purchase from a co-sharer in Shamlat deh, not more than his share, does not vest in Gram Panchayat particularly when the purchaser or the co-sharer was in possession.
Issues: 1. Whether the earlier orders dismissing the Gram Panchayat's petitions for possession operated as res judicata or equitable estoppel, barring the Gram Panchayat from relitigating the same cause of action? 2. Whether the Gram Panchayat had locus standi to file a petition under Section 11 of the Act to get its title determined? 3. Whether land acquired before 26.1.1950 by purchase from a co-sharer in Shamlat deh, not more than his share, vests in Gram Panchayat particularly when the purchaser or the co-sharer was in possession?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The principle of res judicata, equitable res judicata estoppel, and cause of action estoppel applies to the facts and circumstances of this case. The parties cannot be permitted to litigate and relitigate indefinitely much less in a different forum, in the same forum with the same powers on the parimateria of statutory provisions of Section 7, on the same facts with no fresh cause of action or grounds for ejectment thrown up or one becoming trespasser subsequently or the land getting vested under the Act in the Gram Panchayat, with no material difference brought about by the amendment. 2. Section 11 of the Act confers a right on a person claiming a right title or interest in any land vested or deemed to have been vested in Gram Panchayat under this Act or claiming that any land has not been vested in Gram Panchayat could get his right, title or interest determined by the Collector. 3. Land acquired before 26.1.1950 by purchase from co-sharer in Shamlat deh, not more than his share, does not vest in Gram panchayat particularly when the purchaser or the co-sharer was in possession.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 27.12.1985 was quashed and the petition under Section 7 of the Act was dismissed. The order dated 30.7.1982 of the Collector was affirmed.
M.S.Liberhan, J.
1. The instant proceedings originated in a petition filed by the respondent-Gram Panchayat to be put in possession of the land in dispute under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as the Act). Appositely the facts emerging from the pleadings of the parties and the undisputed inferences put during the jourse of arguments run as under :
2. Respondent-Gram Panchayat sought to be put in possession of the land in dispute in 1967, under Section 7 of the Act, as was then applicable. It was contended that the land in dispute vested in Gram Panchayat, and predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner who was none else than his father, was claimed to be in un-authorised possession of the said land and so the petitioner continued as such. Consequently, the Gram Panchayat Claimed to be put in possession. The Assistant Collector vide his order dated 4.5.1967 dismissed the petition observing that "from the evidence produced by Shri Naurang Singh, it is evident that he bought land on 15th Jeth 1966 BK alongwith share of Shamlat land which falls as 12 bighas 13 biswas, so acquired this land prior to the enforcement of this Act and has been in continuous cultivating possession of the land which none has been given to him. So, according to rules, he acquired this land prior to the enforcement of this Act. As the notice is withdrawn and the land is excluded from the definition of shamlat deh". No further action was taken.
3. The Act was amended in 1976 though no substantial change was brought about in Section 7 of the Act. The Gram Panchayat again sought to be put in possession of the land in dispute on the same averments as referred to above. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn for non-prosecution by Gram Panchayat on 6.11.1981.
4. The respondent-Gram Panchayat again moved a petition for the same relief on the same grounds as referred to above on 26.11.1981. We may hasten to add that the only distinguishing feature added in this petition was that in the heading petition for ejectment was referred to the petition under Section 11 read with Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act. The said petition was dismissed on 30.7.1982. The respondent-Gram panchayat went in appeal against the said order, which was set aside and the case was remanded back by the Commissioner vide his order dated 27.12.1985. It was observed :-
"As the Assistant Collector First Grade was not competent to decide the question of title, the proper remedy for the Gram Panchayat was to file an application under Section 11 of the Act."
It is this remand order which has been impugned in this writ petition, inter-alia, contending that no application under Section 11 of the Act is maintainable on behalf of the Gram Panchayat to determine the question of title (ii) decision or order of rejection of the petition earlier for ejectment of the petitioner and putting Gram Panchayat into possession i.e. for the same relief prior to this petition operates as res-judicata or equitable estoppel.
5. The respondent-Gram Panchayat refuted the contentions raised by the petitioner. It was averred that order dated 4.5.1967 would not operate as res-judicata inasmuch as the Assistant Collector had no jurisdiction to decide the question of title in proceedings under Section 7 of the Act. Consequently, the finding returned by him with respect to title was without jurisdiction, nonest and void. Later petition which was dismissed as withdrawn did not determine the question on merit and thus does not operate as res-judicata. In either case petitioner cannot invoke the principle of res-judicata in any eventuality. The provisions of Section 11 of the Act does not debar the authority to determine the question of title at the instance of Gram Panchayat.
6. The learned Single Judge, after noticing the judgments cited by learned counsel for the parties viz. Gram Panchayat Deh Mawaza Garhi Brahaman v. Kesho Nara
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
