Dismissed

Hazara Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Mar 2012CWP/5317/1985

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed four writ petitions challenging orders dismissing Gram Panchayat applications under Sections 7 and 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, holding that Section 7 orders do not operate as res judicata for Section 11 petitions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders accepting Gram Panchayat ownership and dismissing applications under Section 11 are maintained; writs dismissed with no costs.

Hazara Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab etc. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No.4908 of 1985 CWP No.5314 of 1985 CWP No.5315 of 1985 CWP No.5317 of 1985

¶2

[ 1 ]

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

(1)		CWP No.4908 of 1985 Date of decision :05.03.2012
Tehal Singh and others		...Petitioners
	Versus
The State of Punjab and others		...Respondents
(2)		CWP No.5314 of 1985 Date of decision :05.03.2012
Kartar Singh and others		...Petitioners
	Versus
The State of Punjab and others		...Respondents
(3)		CWP No.5315 of 1985 Date of decision :05.03.2012
Piara Singh		...Petitioner
	Versus
The State of Punjab and others		...Respondents
(4)		CWP No.5317 of 1985 Date of decision :05.03.2012
Hazara Singh and others		...Petitioners
	Versus
The State of Punjab and others		...Respondents

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

¶8

Present: Mr. M.S.Khaira, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab. *****

¶9

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.

¶10

This order shall dispose of four writ petitions bearing CWP

¶11

CWP No.4908 of 1985 [ 2 ] CWP No.5314 of 1985 CWP No.5315 of 1985 CWP No.5317 of 1985

¶12

¶13

No.4908 of 1985 titled as “Tehal Singh and others Vs. The State of Punjab and others”, CWP No.5314 of 1985 titled as “Kartar Singh and others Vs. The State of Punjab and others”, CWP No.5315 of 1985 titled as “Piara Singh Vs. The State of Punjab and others' and CWP No.5317 of 1985 titled as “Hazara Singh and others Vs. The State of Punjab and others”, as common question of law is involved in all the four cases. However, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.5314 of 1985.

¶14

The petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing orders passed by the Collector/District Development and Panchayat Officer, Patiala, by which an application filed by the Gram Panchayat, under Sections 7 and 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 [for short “1961 Act”], has been allowed, and appeals have been dismissed by the Director, Panchayats, Punjab (exercising the powers of Commissioner).

¶15

The only argument raised by counsel for the petitioners is that as the Panchayat had earlier filed an application under Section 7 of the 1961 Act on 28.08.1975, which was dismissed on 25.11.1975, the said order operates as res judicata, as it has been passed between the same parties and on the same cause of action. The petitioners have relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jee Ram v. The State of Haryana and others, 1980 P.L.J. 103.

¶16

In reply, counsel for the respondents has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab and others , CWP No.653 of 2011, decided on 03.02.2012, in

¶17

CWP No.4908 of 1985 CWP No.5314 of 1985 CWP No.5315 of 1985 CWP No.5317 of 1985

¶18

[ 3 ]

¶19

¶20

which a similar controversy was involved.

¶21

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the available record.

¶22

While delivering the judgment in the case of Balbir Singh (supra), this Court relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh and another v. The Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others, 1997(1) P.L.J. 52 and another Division Bench judgment in the case of Tara Chand and Fateh Singh v. Gram Panchayat and Gram Sabha of village Atail and others, 1979 P.L.J. 1, to hold that dismissal of a petition under Section 7 of the Act shall not operate as res judicata in a subsequent petition, filed under Section 11 of the Act. It was held that as proceedings under Section 7 of the Act are summary in nature, any decision under Section 7 of the Act will not operate as res judicata, while deciding a petition under Section 11 of the Act. The judgment in Jee Ram's case (supra) has been considered and it was held as under:

¶23

“Section 7 of the 1961 Act sets out a procedure for eviction of unauthorized occupants from shamilat deh and requires the Collector to summarily examine whether the Gram Panchayat is owner of the land for the limited purpose of eviction proceedings. The first proviso to section 7 of the Act, which provides that if a prima facie question of right, title or interest, in such land or property, is raised by any person, the Collector shall direct such person to submit his claim under section 11 of the Act, leaves no ambiguity as to the nature of power under section 7 of the Act,

¶24

CWP No.4908 of 1985 CWP No.5314 of 1985 CWP No.5315 of 1985 CWP No.5317 of 1985

¶25

[ 4 ]

¶26

¶27

namely:- a summary power to evict unauthorized occupants of Shamilat deh. Rules 20 and 21 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the “1964 Rules”), prescribe the procedure to be followed by the Collector, while dealing with a petition filed under section 7 of the Act and leave no ambiguity that while exercising power under section 7 of the 1961, a Collector exercises summary jurisdiction and any finding as to ownership of parties recorded in such proceedings, does not conclusively determine a question of title, much less operate as res judicata, in a subsequent petition filed under section 11 of the Act.”

¶28

xxx xxx xxx

¶29

“A perusal of the judgments in Naurang Singh and Jee Ram's case (supra) would reveal that order passed under Section 7 of the 1961 Act, which was held to operate as res judicata, was passed prior to the substitution of the new section 7 of the Act by way of Act No.19 of 1976 and incorporation of rules 20, 21 and 21-A in the 1964 Rules and before enactment of sections 11 and 13 of the Act. Before the amendment of the 1976 Act, the power to decide a question of title vested in a civil court. The judgment in Tara Chand and Fateh Singh's case (supra), is, therefore, not applicable to the present case and does not advance the petitioner's case in any manner.

¶30

In view of what has been stated hereinabove, as the order passed under section 7 of the Act

¶31

[ 5 ]

¶32

CWP No.4908 of 1985 CWP No.5314 of 1985 CWP No.5315 of 1985 CWP No.5317 of 1985

¶33

¶34

holding that the Gram Panchayat is not the owner, does not operate as res judicata in a petition filed under section 11 of the Act, we affirm findings recorded in the impugned orders that the land belongs to the Gram Panchayat and dismiss the writ petition but with no orders as to costs.”

¶35

In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present writ petitions and, as such, all the four writ petitions are hereby dismissed.

¶36

No costs.

¶37

A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other

¶38

connected cases.

¶39

(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE

¶40

05.03.2012 (RAJIVE BHALLA) vinod* JUDGE

Hazara Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hazara Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gram Panchayat, Ujha Vs Financicl Commissioner & Ors.

Ramesh and Ors. Vs State of Hry. and Ors.

Gram Panchayat Vs Director Consolidation of Holdings Pb.

Ranjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gurnam Singh and Ors. Vs Director Rural Dev. and Panchayat Pb. and Ors.

Raghbir and Ors. Vs Director Rural Dev. and Panchayat Pb. and Ors.