Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
V.K.Bali, J.
Gram Panchayat
Versus
Collector And Ors.
Civil Writ Petition No. 2334 of 1986,
Decided On : NOVEMBER 19, 1992
VILLAGE COMMON LANDS (REGULATION) ACT - SECTION 13-A - SUIT FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE - LOCUS STANDI OF PANCH TO INSTITUTE SUIT - RULE 16 OF PUNJAB VILLAGE COMMON LAND RULES - VALIDITY - RES JUDICATA - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 11 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE TO PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE ACT - SUMMARY INQUIRY - JURISDICTION OF ASSISTANT COLLECTOR.
Fact of the Case:
A Gram Panchayat filed a suit under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, through a Panch, Jyoti Ram, claiming declaration of title over a piece of land. The Collector dismissed the suit holding that Jyoti Ram had no locus standi to institute the suit and that the earlier proceedings under Section 7 of the Act, in which the Collector had found that the Gram Panchayat was not the owner of the land, operated as res judicata.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Collector erred in dismissing the suit on the ground of lack of locus standi of Jyoti Ram. The Court held that Rule 16 of the Punjab Village Common Land Rules, which restricted the right to institute suits on behalf of the Gram Panchayat to certain specified persons, was invalid to the extent that it militated against Section 15(2)(h) of the Act, which empowered the State Government to make rules for regulating the procedure where a Panchayat sues or is sued in its representative capacity. The Court further held that the findings recorded by the Collector under Section 7 on the question of title were prima facie and did not assume finality, and therefore, the principle of res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not applicable.
Issues: 1. Whether a Panch has the locus standi to institute a suit under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, on behalf of the Gram Panchayat? 2. Whether the findings recorded by the Collector under Section 7 of the Act on the question of title operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit under Section 13-A?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that Rule 16 of the Punjab Village Common Land Rules, which restricted the right to institute suits on behalf of the Gram Panchayat to certain specified persons, was invalid to the extent that it militated against Section 15(2)(h) of the Act, which empowered the State Government to make rules for regulating the procedure where a Panchayat sues or is sued in its representative capacity. The Court held that it is permissible for the Gram Panchayat to sue through its Sarpanch or Panch, although where Gram Panchayat is being sued, the procedure as spelled out in Rule 16 has to be followed. 2. The Court held that the findings recorded by the Collector under Section 7 on the question of title were prima facie and did not assume finality, and therefore, the principle of res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not applicable.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the Collector's order dismissing the suit, and remanded the case to the Collector for decision on merits.
V.K.Bali, J.
1. This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 2334 of 1986 and Civil Writ Petition No. 5907 of. 1986 as common questions of fact and law are involved in the same. The facts as extracted from Civil Writ Petition No. 2334 of 1986 reveal that an area measuring 8 Kanals 2 Marlas comprised in KhasraNos. 38(1-0), 39(5.9) and 40 (1-13) situate in the revenue, estate of village Chouli, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Ambala was reserved by the petitioner Gram Panchayat for the common purposes of a school in the village during consolidation operations which took place in, the year 1954-55. This piece of land was leased in the year 1959 to one Bakhtawar Singh and after the lease of Bakhtawar Singh terminated by efflux of time, the land in question was again auctioned this time, however, to one Jhandu at the rate of Rs. 50/- per year. This, lease was sanctioned in favour of Jhandu on 21.7.1964 The case of petitioner-panchayat is that the income so derived was used for the benefit of the inhabitants of the village.
2. In the year 1975-76, the petitioner-Panchayat filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for eviction of respondent Puran Singh in this petition and Gurdial Singh in Civil Writ Petition No. 5907 of 1986. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade after returning a finding that Gram Panchayat was owner and Puran Singh and Gurdial Singh respondents were in unauthorised occupation of the land in dispute ordered eviction of the latter. Aggrieved Puran Singh and Gurdial Singh carried an appeal before the Collector who vide his order dated 30 3.1979 reversed the order passed by the Assistant Collector by holding that the petitioner was not the owner of the land in dispute. Inasmuch as the Gram Panchayat was not satisfied with the findings recorded by the Collector as the findings with regard to title could not be returned in summary proceedings under Section 7 which was in the sole domain of the Collector in a regular civil suit under Section 13-A of the Act, it brought two suits under Section 13-A of the Act on iO.2.!9l A decree for a declaration that the Gram Panchayat is the owner of the land in dispute was prayed in the aforesaid suits. The matter was contested and after resultant trial, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade Jagadhri vide his order dated 30.7.1983 Annexure P-3 decreed the suit. Respondent No. 3 filed an appeal against the aforesaid judgment before the Collector. The appeal of respondent No. 3 succeeded resulting into remand of the case before the Assistant Collector to determine the three points indicated by the Collector. After remand, the Assistant Collector decided all the issues in favour of Gram Panchayat and the suit was again decreed vide judgment dated 31.7.1985. Once again, respondent No. 3 carried an appeal against the aforesaid judgment which was allowed on 18.3.1986, (Annexure P-5) It is this order which has been challenged by the Gram Panchayat in this Writ Petition.
3. The petitions have been contested by respondent No. 3 and Gurdial Sngh and in the preliminary objection taken in the written statement, it has bee a pleaded that the petitioner has not disclosed that it had filed Civil Writ Petition No. 3242 in this Court in the year 1979 against the order dated 30.3.19"9 which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 16.10.1979. Not only the petitioner has concealed material fact but also the decision in the Writ Petition aforesaid operates as res judicata. It is also averred that the question as to ownership of the land was determined by the Additional Collector on 30.3.1979 and it was held that the panchayat could not prove itself to be the owner of the land to entitle it to seek ejectment. It is also averred that the provisions of the Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 are not applicable to the lands reserved under Section 18 of the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation) and Prevention
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
