IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sureshwar Thakur, Kuldeep Tiwari, JJ.
Mewa Singh - Petitioner - Appellant
Versus
Divisional Commissioner, Hisar Circle, Hisar & Ors. - Respondents - Respondent
CWP-755 of 2021
Decided On : 02-05-2023
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act - Encroachment on Gair Mumkin Gali - The court found that the impugned orders suffered from a breach of the principle of constructive res judicata, as the earlier petition resulted in a dismissal order related to reliefs and causes of action similar to the current petition. The impugned orders were declared to be stained and were quashed and set aside.
Fact of the Case:
The Gram Panchayat filed a petition claiming encroachment on Gair Mumkin Gali. The petition was accepted by the Collector but declined by the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority. The petitioner approached the court against the impugned orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned orders suffered from a breach of the principle of constructive res judicata, as the earlier petition resulted in a dismissal order related to reliefs and causes of action similar to the current petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the impugned orders were barred by the principle of res judicata due to the dismissal order related to similar reliefs and causes of action in the earlier petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 11 of the CPC, which prohibits the trial of any suit or issue that has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or parties under whom they claim, litigating under the same title.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed, and set aside the impugned orders.
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.
Factual Background.
1. The Gram Panchayat Rajthal, instituted on 25.03.2013, a petition under Section 7(1)(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, hereinafter for short called as 'the PVCL Act'. In the said petition, one Mewa Singh was impleaded as the respondent-defendant. In the above petition, the petitioner-Gram Panchayat Rajthal, claimed that the respondent therein had made an encroachment, upon, the Gair Mumkin Gali. Therefore, it was prayed that the said encroachment be ordered to be removed from the Gair Mumkin Gali.
2. The learned Collector concerned, through a decision made thereons on 10.12.2015 (Annexure P-7), accepted the said petition. The above decision (Annexure P-7), resulted in the aggrieved therefrom instituting thereagainst an appeal before the competent Appellate Authority concerned. However, the competent Appellate Authority concerned, through a decision made on 30.07.2019, upon, appeal No.159-EA/2015/16 (Annexure P-9), declined the espoused relief to the appellant. Thus, affirmed the verdict, as became previously drawn by the learned Collector concerned (Annexure P-7).
3. Consequently, the aggrieved Mewa Singh preferred thereagainst a revision petition before the Revisional Authority concerned. However, through a decision made on 13.10.2020 (Annexure P-11), upon the revision petition concerned, the Revisional Authority concerned, also declined the espoused relief to the revisionist therein. The above concurrently made decisions (Annexures P-7, P-9 and P-11), has caused pain to the petitioner and has led him to institute thereagainst, the instant petition before this Court.
Reasons for accepting the petition.
4. The principal reason for accepting the petition, is grooved in the factum, that uncontestingly, in respect of the subject matter involved in the instant petition, the Gram Panchayat had earlier instituted, a petition under Section 7 of 'the PVCL Act', before the Assistant Collector concerned, thus resulting in the said eviction petition being dismissed through an order, as comprised in Annexure P-1. Though, the dismissal order, as made on the earlier petition, carrying therein a cause of action or subject matter or khasra numbers, but similar to the ones, as carried in the extant petition, is not sufficient, to attract to the extant petition, the estopping principle of constructive resjudicata, unless also in the earlier motion, either the petitioner or his predecessor in interest, became impleaded as a party.
5. Be that as it may, the earlier petition instituted by the Gram Panchayat Rajthal, against the respondents therein, resulted in as revealed by Annexure P-1, a dismissal order being made on the said petition. Moreover, one of the respondents, who became impleaded therein was the predecessor in interest, of the present petitioner, inasmuch as, one Ajit Singh. Therefore, when in the earlier petition, whereons a dismissal order Annexure P-1, was made, thereins related to reliefs or causes of action, besides khasra numbers, but similar to the ones, as carried in the extant petition. Therefore, when the apposite decision Annexure P-1, was also made thus, inter-se those parties, who are similar to the parties in the extant petition. Resultantly the subsequent motion, as laid before the statutory authorities concerned, which resulted in the drawing of the impugned orders, was necessarily barred by the estopping principle of res-judicata. If so, the effect of the above statutory bar of estoppel operating against the Gram Panchayat concerned, besides upon the authorities concerned, who drew the impugned annexures, is that, the impugned annexures, suffer from a vice of breach being caused to the principle of constructive resjudicata. The necessary sequel thereof, is that, when the holistic principle underlining the said principle, as becomes statutorily engrafted in Section 11 of the CPC, provisions whereof are extracted hereinafter, is to curtail, the menace of mu
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of res judicata and constructive res judicata in determining the validity of the impugned orders.
The dismissal of a suit for default does not constitute a verdict on merits and therefore does not bar a subsequent suit by the same party. Documentary evidence is required to support claims under st....
The court ruled that an eviction petition under the Punjab Village Common Lands Act must be converted into a title suit for valid jurisdiction, invalidating subsequent orders if not.
The court affirmed the binding nature of eviction orders under the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, rejecting jurisdictional challenges based on the Haryana Public Premises Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.