The decrees passed by the civil courts prior to the amendment of the Act by Act No. 19 of 1976 cannot be ignored by the authorities exercising jurisdiction under the Act unless set aside by a competent court.

J.V.GUPTA and C.J JJ.

1. Civil Writ Petition No.1870 of 1986, when came up for motion hearing, the same was admitted to the Full Bench with the following order.

"Counsel for the respondents cites Division Bench decisions in Baldev Singh V/s. State of Punjab, (1983) 1 Land LR 385 and Gurnam Singh V/s. Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab, 1984 Pun LJ 580 which have taken a view contrary to each other on the same point."

Later on when L.P.A. No. 13 of 1986, came up for final hearing, this fact was brought to the notice of the Bench and consequently, the said L.P.A. which was against the judgment in Civil Writ Petn. No. 217 of 1985, which was decided on 1/11/1985 (now reported in 1986 Pun LJ 404) was also ordered to be heard and decided by a Full Bench along with the said writ petition.

2. The facts giving rise to the said L.P.A. were that the Gram Panchayat of Village Bathoi Kalan, Tehsil and District Patiala, filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 , (hereinafter called the Act), for ejectment of Labh Singh, respondent, from the land measuring 296 kanals 6 marlas, situated in village Bathoi Kalan, Tehsil and District Patiala. That application was allowed and Labh Singh respondent, was ordered to be ejected from the land, in dispute. Appeal filed by Labh Singh, respondent, did not succeed and was dismissed. Aggrieved against the same, Labh Singh, respondent, filed Civil Writ Petition No. 217 of 1985 inter alia pleading that he and other right-holders had filed a suit for declaration against the Gram Panchayat that they were the owners in possession of the land, in dispute. The Gram Panchayat was impleaded as a defendant. It contested the suit. The suit was decreed on 3/07/1972, by the subordinate Judge, Second Class, Patiala and it was declared that the plaintiffs were the owners of the suit land along with other proprietors of the village. No appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court was filed and thus the said judgment and decree which were inter partes were binding on the Panchayat. In the face of this decree, another application under Section 7 of the Act by the Gram Panchayat for the ejectment of the writ petitioner on the ground that he was in unauthorised occupation of the shamilat deh was not competent. This plea found favour with the learned single Judge who did not accept the contention of the Gram Panchayat that in view of the amendment of the principal Act, by Act No. 19 of 1976, the decree passed by the Civil Court had to be ignored by the authorities dealing with the applications under Section 7 of the Act. In reaching this conclusion, the learned single Judge relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Gurnam Singh V/s. Joint Director, Panchayats. Punjab, 1984 Punjab LJ 580, wherein it was held that the decrees passed by the Civil Courts prior to the enforcement of the Punjab Act No. 19 of 1976 amending the principal Act, cannot be ignored by the authorities exercising the jurisdiction under the Act. The learned single Judge distinguished the decision of another Division Bench of this Court in Baldev Singh V/s. State of Punjab, (1983) 1 Land LR 385, observing that it had not been mentioned therein as to whether the decree of the civil court had been passed before the enactment and enforcement of the Punjab Act No. 19 of 1976. The orders of the Collector and the Joint Director, Panchayats, exercising the powers of the Commissioner were thus quashed. Dissatisfied with the same, the Gram Panchayat, had filed this letters patent appeal. The main question to be decided by this Full Bench is, as to whether the judgment in Baldev Singhs case (supra), runs contrary to the decision rendered in Gurnam Singhs case (supra), or not.

3. Baldev Singhs case was decided a year earlier to the case reported as Bajinder Singh V/s. The Assistant Collector, Ist Grade Guhla, 1983 Pun LJ 116, and was disposed of at the stage of motion hearing. No argu