Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jang Bahadur And Others vs Director Rural Development And ... on 28 August, 2012
Author: Rajive Bhalla
Bench: Rajive Bhalla, Rekha Mittal
Civil Writ Petition No.13813 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Civil Writ Petition No. 13813 of 2012
Date of Decision: 28.8.2012
Jang Bahadur and others ..Petitioners
Versus
Director Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab
and others.
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL
Present: Mr. A.S.Gill, Advocate for the petitioners.
RAJIVE BHALLA, J.
The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing order dated 24.6.2003 (Annexure P-6) passed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Kapurthala, and order dated 24.2.2012 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab, whereby petition filed by the Gram Panchayat, under section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "1961 Act"), was allowed, declaring it to be owner of the land, in dispute and the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
The Gram Panchayat filed an application under section 11 of the 1961 Act, claiming ownership of the land, in dispute. Dara Singh, father of the petitioners, filed a reply averring amongst others that the petition is barred by principles of res judicata as an earlier Civil Writ Petition No.13813 of 2012 2 ejectment order passed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer on 28.1.1985, was set aside by the Director, Panchayat Lands, on 09.3.1990, and another ejectment petition filed against Dara Singh was dismissed as withdrawn. It was also pleaded that the land, in dispute, together with other land, had fallen to the share of one Bawa Singh, who sold it to Dara Singh, vide registered sale deed dated 6.12.1967, for a sum of Rs.3500/-.
The District Development and Panchayat Officer-cum- Collector, vide order dated 24.6.2003, allowed the petition and declared the Gram Panchayat as owner of the land, in dispute. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that the land, in dispute, was the ownership of one Bawa Singh and was, thereafter, purchased by petitioners' father vide registered sale deed dated 6.12.1967. The land, therefore, does not vest as "Shamilat Deh" in the Gram Panchayat. Another argument, pressed into service, is that, as land is recorded as "Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat" in possession of Bawa Singh as a co-sharer, the Gram Panchayat cannot claim any right, title or interest therein. It is also argued that dismissal of an earlier petition, filed under section 7 of the 1961 Act, on the ground that land does not vest in the Gram Panchayat, operates as res judicata. In support of this argument, the petitioners rely upon a Division Bench judgment of this court in Naurang Singh (dead) through LRs Versus State of Punjab, 1997(1) R.C.R.(Civil)
660. We have heard counsel for the petitioners, perused the Civil Writ Petition No.13813 of 2012 3 impugned orders and find no reason to issue the writ, as prayed.
The land, in dispute, is, admittedly, "Shamilat Deh", as it is recorded, in the revenue record, as "Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat". The petitioners have not been able to plead or prove by reference to any material evidence as how the land, in dispute, is excluded from "Shamilat Deh". After enactment of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act 1954, the land, in dispute, came to vest in the Gram Panchayat, thereby extinguishing the rights of proprietors. The vires of this enactment were upheld upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The purchase of this land by the petitioners' father, from one Bawa Singh, does not transfer any right to the petitioners. An argument that as an earlier petition filed under section 7 of the 1961 Act, was dismissed, it operates res judicata, disregards a significant fact, namely, that proceedings under section 7 of the 1961 Act, are summary in nature and are irrelevant while deciding a question of title as held by a Division Bench of this Court in Tara Chand and Fateh Singh versus Gram Panchayat and Gram Sabha of Village Atail and others 1979, P.L.J. 1 and Balbir Singh versus State of Punjab and others (Civil Writ Petition No. 653 of 2011) decided on 3.2.2012. The opinion, to the contrary, recorded in Naurang Singh (dead) through LRs Versus State of Punjab (supra) was considered in Balbir Singh versus State of Punjab and others (supra) and it was held that in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Inder Singh and another versus The Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others, 1997(1) P.L.J. 52, the judgment in Naurang Singh's case (supra) does not lay down the correct Civil Writ Petition No.13813 of 2012 4 position in law. We have, however, noticed that on account of an typographical error in the second last paragraph of the judgment in Balbir Singh's case (supra) instead of Naurang Singh (dead) through LRs versus State of Punjab (supra), the judgment in Tara Singh and Fateh Singh's case (supra) has been mentioned.
It is, therefore, apparent that the application decided under section 7 of the 1961 Act, does not operate as res judicata in proceedings under section 11 of the 1961 Act. The determination of a question of title by an authority conferred with summary powers, does not operate as res judicata in a title suit filed and adjudicated by a forum, conferred with a jurisdiction, to decide a question of title, i.e., a Collector, while exercising powers under Section 11 of the 1961 Act.
In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the petition is dismissed.
( RAJIVE BHALLA ) JUDGE ( REKHA MITTAL ) 28.8.2012 JUDGE VK