JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

Gram Panchayat Harsha Cheena (Sabajpura) Block Harsha Cheena through Gurmej Singh, Presiding Officer Block Harsha Cheena, District Amritsar, instituted a petition under Section 7 of The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the respondents therein, who are the petitioners herein. In the said petition it was claimed that the respondents are in unauthorized possession of the disputed land measuring 3 Kanal 8 Marlas, as thereon exists a playground. Therefore, it was averred that since the existence of a playground on the petition lands, causes change of user of the petition lands, from the common purpose, for which they became reserved for the village proprietary body. Thus, the petitioners' possession over the petition khasra numbers was averred to completely unauthorized as well as unlawful. The learned Collector concerned, through a decision made thereons, on 03.09.2015 accepted the petition of the Gram Panchayat, and, ordered for the eviction of the respondents therein, from the petition lands.

2. The aggrieved therefrom preferred an appeal bearing No.133 of 2015 before the Competent Appellate Court. On the above appeal, the Competent Appellate Authority made a decision, hence affirming the verdict as became initially drawn by the learned Collector concerned.

3. The reason as becomes assigned therein, is that, given there existing a revenue entry of Gair Mumkin Chappar qua the petition lands, whereas, the appellants-petitioners herein raising thereons a shed for the keeping thereins their livestock. Thus, there being an unlawful change of user, of the petition lands.

4. The aggrieved therefrom are obviously pained from the above concurrently made verdicts against them, and, are led to institute there against the instant petition before this Court.

Submissions Of Learned Counsel For The Petitioners

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners, has much vigorously submitted before this Court, that since the learned Civil Courts concerned, as revealed by Annexure P-8, through a verdict drawn on 02.03.2005, had decreed the present petitioners' suit for permanent prohibitory injunction. Moreover, when the aggrieved therefrom defendants, had unsuccessfully challenged the verdict of the learned Civil Judge concerned, through rearing a Civil Appeal No.15 of 2005, but obviously resulting in the decree granted by the learned Civil Court concerned, on the plaintiffs'-petitioners' suit herein, being affirmed through a verdict comprised in Annexure P-9. Consequently, he submits, that in so far as the instant petition is concerned, the subsequent thereto petition is barred by the principle of res judicata. He also submits that since there was no cogent proof adduced by the Gram Panchayat concerned, before the Authorities below suggestive that the revenue entries were aptly drawn or were based on a validly held, and, concluded consolidation operations in the Mohal concerned. Therefore, he submits that no credence is to be assigned to the revenue entries.

Analysis Of The Submissions

6. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the instant petition is barred by the principle of res judicata, as in the earlier instituted motion by the petitioners, they became recipients of a validly drawn Civil Court decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants therein, is however rejected. The prime reason for rejecting the above argument is rested, upon the factum that the prime requirement qua the principle of res judicata becoming attracted to the instant lis, is encapsulated in the triplicate test: i) similarity of causes of action in