Gurnam Singh vs State of Punjab

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.

This is Petitioners'' application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for allowing the writ petition in view of Full Bench decision of this Court in Gram Panchayat village Bathoi Kalan v. Jagar Ram and others, 1991 (1) 99 PLR 260 : 1991(1) RRR 368.

I have perused the judgment and have also gone through the paper book. I find that matter is squarely covered by Gram Panchayat, Bathoi Kalan''s case (supra).

In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of order dated 28.2.1979 copy Annexure P5 to the writ petition passed by Collector/District Development and Panchayat Officer, Patiala dispossessing the petitioners from the land in dispute. Vide order dated 6.8.1990, Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab, dismissed the appeal of the petitioners.

It has not been disputed that the land in dispute was recorded as Mustarka Malkan Hasab Rasad Khewat and all the petitioners were entitled to its possession according to their respective share in the proprietary body of the village. The Consolidation Authorities had wrongly reserved the said land in favour of the Gram Panchayat, respondent No. 3, against which some of the rightholders of the village filed Civil Writ Petition No. 948 of 1969 in this Court and by order dated 17.4.1969, it was held that land reserved for the Panchayat be dealt with as per the directions of the Supreme Court in Bhagat Ram and others v. State of Punjab and others, 1967 PLR 287, as under :

"........the Scheme (framed under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948) is hit by the second proviso to Art. 31A in so far as it reserves 100 Kanals 2 Marlas for the income of the Panchayat. We direct the State to modify the Scheme to bring it into accord with the second proviso as interpreted by us, and proceed according to law."

In view of the directions issued by this Court, the Revenue Authorities vide mutation No. 1311 sanctioned the mutation of the land in dispute in favour of the proprietary body of the village of the petitioner vide its order dated 19.3.1971. Respondent No. 3 Gram Panchayat filed appeal against the said mutation order but the same was dismissed by the Collector Patiala, vide its order dated 16.6.1971.

Thereafter, respondent No. 3 filed a Civil Suit No. 394 dated 22.7.1971 against the petitioner and some others in respect of the suit land but the said suit was also dismissed by SubJudge 1st Class, Rajpura on 15.7.1972 as per Annexure P2, wherein the learned Sub Judge held that the suit land neither vests under the Gram Panchayat, respondent No. 13 nor is it in its possession. Respondent No. 3 did not file any further appeal against said order dated 15.7.1972.

In view of the fact that the Civil Court had given a categoric finding that the suit land neither vests under the Gram Panchayat respondent No. 3 nor is it in its possession, this fact was itself sufficient in allowing the petitioners to continue in possession but the Collector Patiala and the appellate authority ignored these.

In Gram Panchayat, Bathoi Kalan''s case (supra) this Court held that the decree passed by the competent Civil Courts between the parties could not be ignored by the authorities before the enforcement of Punjab Act 19 of 1976, under the Act which admittedly was not taken into consideration by the authorities.

In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is allowed and orders dated 28.2.1979, Annexure P5 and dated 6.8.1980, Annexure P6 passed by the Collector/D.D. and P.O. Patiala and Jt. Director, Panchayats, Punjab, respectively, are quashed. There will be no order as to costs.