Daulat Ram vs State of Haryana

D.V. Sehgal, J.

Daulat Ram petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the orders dated 29.9.1976 Annexure P. 3 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Naraingarh, and dated 1.8.1978 Annexure P. 4 passed by the Collector, Ambala, in appeal. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade ordered ejectment of the petitioner from the land comprising Khasra Nos. 11/3/1, 3/2/1 and 9/2 on the ground that the said land belonged to the Panchayat and the petitioner was in unauthorised possession of the same. Penalty under Section 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Haryana Amendment Act, 1974, (hereinafter called `the Act'') for Kharif 1975 at the rate of Rs. 600/ per acre in respect of the land measuring 3 Kanals 19 Marlas plus costs of Rs. 60/ were also imposed on him.

The proceedings were initiated before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade on the basis of an application moved by Naurata respondent No. 3 under Section 7(2) of the Act, who alleged that the petitioner and his son Arjan were in unauthorised possession of the Panchayat land bearing Khasra Nos. 11/2/2/1, 2/2/2, 3/1, 3/2/1 and 9/2 measuring 4 Kanals 16 Marlas situate in village Chhajal Majra. The authorities, however, found that the petitioner was not in occupation of the land bearing Khasra Nos. 11/2/2/1 and 2/2/2 but in respect of the rest of the land the order of ejectment as mentioned above was passed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that earlier also the Gram Panchayat of village Chhajal Majra had filed an application under Section 7(2) of the Act against the petitioner but the same was dismissed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Naraingarh, vide his order dated 14.1.1971, Annexure P. 1. Later on, Naurata respondent No. 3 also filed an application under Section 7(2) of the Act before the Assistant Collector and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 23.6.1977, Annexure P. 2. He accordingly contends that the orders Annexures P. 1 and P. 2 operate as res judicata and for that reason fresh proceedings under section 7(2) of the Act could not be taken against the petitioner and as such the impugned orders Annexures P. 3 and P. 4 cannot be sustained.

The order Annexure P. 1, however, shows that the Gram Panchayat had earlier sought ejectment of the petitioner and one Baldev from Khasra No. 11/3/1 measuring 1 Kanal 16 Marlas only. The proceedings taken out by respondent No. 3 which resulted in the order Annexure P. 2 pertain to some other land comprising Khasra No. 4/23/2 Min (1 Kanal 6 Marlas) and 4/23/2 Min (1 Kanal 7 Marlas). Thus, it is only the land comprising Khasra No. 11/3/1, which is included in the land, from which the ejectment of the petitioner has now been ordered Annexures P. 3 and P. 4. The earlier application of the Gram Panchayat had been dismissed by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 14.1.1971 Annexure P. 1. It is not in dispute that the principles of res judicata are applicable to the proceedings under Section 7 of the Act. Reliance for this purpose was rightly placed on Jeevan and others v. The State of Haryana and others, 1972 PLJ 389, and Jee Ram v. The State of Haryana and others, 1980 PLJ 103. I am, therefore, of the view that the impugned orders Annexures P. 3 and P. 4 qua ejectment of the petitioner from Khasra No. 11/3/1 (1 Kanal 16 Marlas) are not sustainable.

The learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, however, contended that the application which culminated in the order Annexure P. 1 was preferred by the Gram Panchayat and it was directed against the petitioner and one Baldev son of Kirpa. According to him, the parties in the proceedings resulting in the orders Annexures P. 3 and P. 4 are Naurata on the one hand and the petitioner and his son Arjan on the other. On this basis he submits that the order Annexure P. 1 cannot operate as res judicata even qua Khasra No. 11/3/1, which was the subjectmatter of the order Annexure P. 1.

I find it difficult to agree with this contention. Respondent No. 3 has filed this application under Section 7(2) of the Act for ejectment of the petitioner and handing over possession of the land to the Gram Panchayat, thus espousing the cause of the Gram Panchayat. Likewise, since the petitioner was a party to the proceedings in the order Annexure P. 1 as also the proceedings culminating in the orders Annexures P. 3 andP. 4, it cannot be said that the parties in the two proceedings were different.

Accordingly, partly allowing this petition, the orders Annexures P. 3 and P. 4 directing ejectment of the petitioner qua the land comprising Khasra No. 11/3/1 (1 Kanal 16 Marlas) are quashed. The penalty at the rate of Rs. 600/ per acre as directed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade vide order dated 29.9.1976 Annexure P. 3 shall be calculated on the remaining land measuring 2 Kanals 2 Marlas only. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.