The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Civil Court decree dated 25.06.1959 constituted res judicata, barring the authorities from entertaining any petition by the Gram Panchayat in respect of the suit land. The court also emphasized that the plea of collusion or fraud must be specifically pleaded and proved.

Surya Kant, J.

This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 9840, 10772, 11470, 11556, 11559 of 2012 and CWP Nos.20423, 20424, 20425, 20499, 20538, 20549, 20600, 20653, 20674, 20687, 20688 of 2015 as the points in issue raised in all these cases are common in nature. The petitioners are proprietors of Village Jalbera, Tehsil Sirhand, District Fatehgarh Sahib and have a dispute with the Gram Panchayat of their village in respect of the proprietary and possessory rights over a big chunk of land. On the suggestion of counsel for the parties, CWP No. 11559 of 2012 is treated as the lead case for extracting the relevant facts.

2. The petitioners have averred that the piece of land measuring 1019 Bighas and 18 Biswas situated in the revenue estate of village Jalbera, District Fatehgarh Sahib has been recorded in the jamabandi since the year 1907-08 onwards under the ownership of "Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Zare Khewat" i.e. the land left out by the proprietary body of the village wherein every proprietor had a share to the extent of his holding in the revenue estate of the village, and which continued in the cultivating possession of Makbuja Malkan i.e. the proprietors. The jamabandi for the year 1947-48 (P1) has been appended on illustrative basis. The proprietors were continuously cultivating the aforesaid land and none of them was in possession of excess area than his respective share.

3. The proprietors, namely, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed a civil suit for declaration to the effect that the Gram Panchayat of their village (impleaded as defendant No.1) had no interest in the suit land and the proprietors alone were the owners in possession of it which they had been cultivating as per their respective share. It was averred that some of the proprietors had sold their shares but no entries were being made in the revenue record on an erroneous premise that since the PEPSU Village Common Land (Regulations) Act, 1954 came into force, the proprietors/plaintiffs were left with no right or interest in the suit land.

4. The Gram Panchayat filed its written statement and is said to have contested the suit. The Civil Court, Bassi framed the following issues:-

(i) Whether the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 are the owners of the property in dispute? OPP

(ii) Relief.

5. The suit was finally decreed vide judgement and decree dated 25.06.1959 and a declaration was granted against the Gram Panchayat and in favour of the plaintiffs and other proprietors of the village (P2). The Civil Court held as follows:-

"...I do not find much force in the contention that because the Patwari failed to make the entry in his record so it is improbable that the partition took place. Further in force of overwhelming evidence adduced by the plaintiffs almost arrive at any other conclusion that the partition as alleged in the plaint had taken place...

...It is no doubt that ordinarily if a partition takes place through a Court then it would be according to the extent of revenue assessed or each holding that the share will be determined. In case of private partition, I do not deem it necessary that in case basis of partition it evolved on different from ordinary practise, which could cast a veil of suspicion around the proved fact of partition having taken place.

Whether the Khewatdar had partitioned on the mutually agreed on that is according to extent of each one's holdings merely on the ground a doubt; regarding the fact whether any partition did take place could not arise.

6. In face of evidence both oral and documentary evidence led by the plaintiffs, I came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 are owners of the land in dispute on account of the partition having already taken place of ‘Shamlat Deh' so the issue is decided against the defendant No.1.

7. Relief. The plaintiffs are entitled to relief claim.

8. In view of the above, I decree the suit with the costs against defendant No.1 and declare that the plaintiffs and defendant No.2