Partly allowed

Hardev Singh & Ors. v. Addl. Director & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Feb 2013CWP/15661/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed CWP partly, setting aside eviction order for specific khasra numbers based on res judicata, while affirming eviction for other lands pending title confirmation.

What did the court decide?

Order directing eviction of Petitioner No.1 set aside with respect to Khasra Nos. 18 and 22 in Rectangle No.65; Gram Panchayat allowed to file petition under Section 11 for title.

Hardev Singh & Ors. Vs Addl. Director & Anr. — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CWP No.15661 of 1992

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

CWP No.15661 of 1992

¶6

DATE OF DECISION : 06.02.2013

¶7

Hardev Singh and others

¶8

…Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

Additional Director Panchayats, Punjab and another …Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL

¶12

Present : Mr. Sarjit Singh, Senior Advocate, with Ms. I.K.Pannu, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶13

Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1.

¶14

Mr. M.L.Saini, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶15

RAJIVE BHALLA, J. (ORAL)

¶16

The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing order dated 17.07.1992 passed by the Additional Director Panchayats, Punjab (exercising the powers of 'Commissioner'), under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the '1961 Act').

¶17

The Gram Panchayat filed a petition under Section 7(2) of the 1961 Act for eviction of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 from Rectangle No.65 Khasra Nos.14, 18 and 22. The petition was dismissed with respect to Khasra Nos.18 and 22 but was allowed with respect to Khasra No.14. A second petition was filed by the Gram Panchayat on 12.05.1981 for eviction of respondent No.3 from Rectangle No.65 Khasra Nos.22 and 14. The petition was dismissed on 29.12.1981 by holding that as the earlier petition with respect to this land was dismissed, the Gram Panchayat could not file a fresh petition without getting its title decided, under

¶18

CWP No.15661 of 1992

¶19

-2-

¶20

Section 11 of the 1961 Act. The Assistant Collector did not notice that eviction has already been ordered from Khasra No.14. The Gram Panchayat, instead of getting its title decided, filed a third petition on 01.06.1988 seeking eviction of all the petitioners from Rectangle No.65 Khasra No.13/1, 17, 18, 22 and Khasra No.1 in Rectangle No.67. The petition was dismissed, by the Collector on 31.01.1989 by holding that petitioner No.1 has purchased the land from Kartar Singh and Niranjan Singh (Petitioner Nos.2 and 3), vide agreement dated 10.06.1976, whose possession is very old. The appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat was allowed, by the Appellate Authority, by holding that khasra numbers in the present petition are different from the petition decided in 1965 and, therefore, dismissal of the earlier petitions filed by the Gram Panchayat, are irrelevant.

¶21

Counsel for the petitioners contends that as two earlier petitions were dismissed with respect to the land, in dispute, the earlier orders operate as resjudicata.

¶22

Counsel for the Gram Panchayat submits that petitioner No.1 has no right, title or interest in the land, in dispute, and as the earlier petitions for eviction were filed against petitioner Nos.2 and 3, the petitioner cannot take any benefit from the partial dismissal of the earlier ejectment petition against petitioner Nos.2 and 3. It is further submitted that a perusal of the earlier orders and the impugned order reveals that khasra numbers are different and, therefore, orders, Annexures P-1 and P-2, do not operate as res judicata.

¶23

We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order as well as the paper book.

¶24

The dispute, in the present case, is whether orders dated 21.01.1965 and 29.12.1981 operate as resjudicata, in proceedings,

¶25

CWP No.15661 of 1992

¶26

-3-

¶27

initiated by the Gram Panchayat, under Section 7 of the 1961 Act. Admittedly, proceedings under Section 7 of the 1961 Act are summary in nature and as a general rule, the principle of resjudicata does not apply to summary proceedings. Where, however, the land, the cause of action and parties are the same, the principle of resjudicata would apply to summary proceedings. The only point that remains is, whether the land, in dispute, in the present case was subject matter of orders dated 21.01.1965 and 29.12.1981.

¶28

A perusal of these orders reveals that the first petition was filed with respect to Khasra Nos.14, 18 and 22 against Kartar Singh and Niranjan Singh (petitioner Nos.2 and 3), who were ordered to be evicted from Khasra No.14, whereas, the petition was dismissed with respect to Khasra Nos.18 and 22. The Gram Panchayat filed a second petition for eviction of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 from Khasra Nos.14 and 22. The petition was dismissed with respect to both khasra numbers though earlier petition with respect to Khasra No.14 had already been allowed against petitioner Nos.2 and 3. The Gram Panchayat filed a third petition seeking ejectment from Rectangle No.65 Khasra Nos.13/1, 17, 18 and 22 and Rectangle No.67 Khasra No.1. The Collector dismissed this petition without referring to the plea of resjudicata on an erroneous assumption that the long possession of petitioner Nos.2 and 3, entitles them to protection of their possession. The appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat was allowed by the Appellate Authority by holding that as khasra numbers are different, the earlier petitions do not operate as resjudicata. The impugned finding, in our considered opinion, is partially correct. The petition with respect to Khasra Nos.18 and 22 of Rectangle No.65 was dismissed on 21.01.1965 and the petition with respect to Khasra Nos.14 and 22 was dismissed on 29.12.1981. At this stage, it would be

¶29

CWP No.15661 of 1992

¶30

-4-

¶31

appropriate to mention that dismissal of the second petition with respect to Khasra No.14, was an error committed by the Collector, as ejectment of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 had already been ordered from Khasra No.14 on 21.01.1965. The third petition, which is the petition, in dispute, included Khasra Nos.18 and 22, which were subject matter of earlier petitions for eviction and other khasra numbers, which were not subject matter of earlier petition. The Gram Panchayat, therefore, could not file a petition under Section 7 of the 1961 Act with respect to Khasra Nos.18 and 22 without seeking adjudication of its title. As regards the land in Khasra Nos.13 and 17 situated in Rectangle No.65 and in Khasra No.1 of Rectangle No.67, as the petitioners have not been able to prove, by way of any prima facie evidence, that the land is excluded from Shamilat Deh , or that they are in legal possession, the Appellate Authority has rightly ordered their eviction.

¶32

In this view of the matter, the writ petition is partly allowed, the order passed by the Appellate Authority directing eviction of the petitioner No.1 is set aside with respect to Khasra Nos.18 and 22 situated in Rectangle No.65 and affirmed with respect to the other khasra numbers. The Gram Panchayat shall, however, be at liberty to file a petition under Section 11 of the 1961 Act for establishing its title with respect to Khasra Nos.18 and 22 of Rectangle No.65 and, thereafter, to seek eviction of the petitioners from the land, in dispute, if the Gram Panchayat is held to be owner of the land.

¶33

(RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE

¶34

(REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE

¶35

06.02.2013 adhikari

Hardev Singh & Ors. v. Addl. Director & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hardev Singh & Ors. v. Addl. Director & Anr.

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

Ram Sarup and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sadhu Singh etc. Vs Director Rural Development & Panchayat Department & Ors.

Prem Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Mukhtiar Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Bachan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jain Muni Shri Bimal Chand High School Vs Gram Panchayat, Kup Kalan