Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Surya Kant and Raj Mohan Singh, JJ.
Ram Bhaj - Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala and Ors. - Respondents
CWP No. 8705 of 1988 (O&M)
Decided On : 10.4.2015
res judicata - Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 - Section 7, Section 13-B - 2(g), 4(3)(ii)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order of ejectment passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, under Section 13-B of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The petitioner had been involved in multiple proceedings under Section 7 and Section 13-B of the Act, with conflicting orders and appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the principle of res judicata does not apply to proceedings under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, as they are distinct and independent. The court also found that the land in question was deemed to vest in the Gram Panchayat as Shamlat Deh, and the petitioner's claim under Section 4(3)(ii) of the Act was not legally sustainable.
Issues: The issues involved the applicability of res judicata to the proceedings, the interpretation of Section 4(3)(ii) of the 1961 Act, and the ownership of the disputed land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the proceedings under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act are distinct and independent, and the principle of res judicata does not apply. Additionally, the court interpreted the provisions of Section 4(3)(ii) and held that the land in question vested in the Gram Panchayat as Shamlat Deh, rendering the petitioner's claim unsustainable.
Final Decision: The writ petition was found to be devoid of merits and was dismissed.
Raj Mohan Singh, J. - Petitioner assails the order dated 31.08.1988 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala -respondent No.1.
2. Brief facts culminating in filing the present petition are that respondent No.4-Gram Panchayat filed an eviction petition under Section 7 of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 1961 Act') against the petitioner before respondent No.3 which was dismissed vide order dated 06.04.1970. The aforesaid order was assailed by respondent No.4- Gram Pachayat in appeal, which was also dismissed by respondent No.2. Further, a revision was filed against the order passed by Appellate Authority before respondent No.1. The revision was allowed and an order of ejectment was passed against the petitioner.
3. Against the order passed by respondent No.1, petitioner approached this Court by filing CWP No.1589 of 1972 titled as Ram Bhaj v. Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala Cantt. etc. The writ petition was allowed vide order dated 27.09.1972, whereby order passed by respondent No.1 was quashed and the case was remanded to respondent No.3 for fresh decision.
4. After the remand, respondent No.3 took up the proceedings and passed order dated 23.07.1974 holding the possession of petitioner to be unauthorised and ordered his ejectment. Petitioner filed appeal against the said order before respondent No.2 who vide his order dated 07.041975 set aside the order of respondent No.3 and found that the possession of petitioner over the land in dispute was for more than 35 years and, therefore, no order of ejectment could be passed.
5. Against the order dated 07.04.1975 passed by respondent No.2, respondent No.4 filed CWP No.2771 of 1975 titled as Gram Panchayat, Sutana v. Collector, Karnal etc. The petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19.10.1982. In this way the proceedings initiated under Section 7 of the 1961 Act stood culminated.
6. Thereafter, respondent No.4-Gram Panchayat filed title suit under Section 13-B of the 1961 Act before respondent No.3. Vide order dated 20.03.1986, respondent No.3 decreed the suit, declaring respondent No.4 to be owner of the property in question, but did not pass any order of ejectment against the petitioner for the reasons that he was in possession since time of his father.
7. Against the aforesaid order respondent No.4 filed appeal before respondent No.2 and the petitioner also filed cross-objections. Respondent No.2 vide order dated 11.12.1986 dismissed the appeal of respondent No.4 and allowed the cross-objections of the petitioner thereby dismissing the petition under Section 13-B of the 1961 Act in toto. Against the order dated 11.12.1986 passed by respondent No.2, respondent No.4 filed revision petition before respondent No.1, who vide order dated 31.08.1988 (Annexure P-4) accepted the revision petition, conferring title to respondent No.4.
8. The aforesaid order passed by respondent No.1 has now been assailed in the present writ petition, primarily on the ground of res judicata and applicability of Section 4(3)(ii) of 1961 Act.
9. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have also gone through the material on record.
10. Before embarking upon merits of the case, it is beneficial to reproduce relevant extracts of Section 2(g) and Section 4(3)(ii) of the 1961 Act.
"2. (g) "Shamilat deh" includes
(1) Land described in the revenue records as Shamilat deh excluding abadi deh.
x x x x x x x x
(3) Land described in the revenue records as shamilat, Tarafs, Pattis Pannas and Tholas and used according to revenue records for the benefit or the village community or a part thereof for common purposes of village. x x x x x x x
(5) Land in any village described as banjar qadim and used for common purposes of the village, according to revenue records; .... but does not include land which--
x x x x x x x
(iii) has been partitioned and brought under cultivation by individual landholders before the 26th January,
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
