Labh Singh vs State of Punjab

I.S. Tiwana, J. (Oral)

The learned counsel for the parties are agreed that Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 217, 278 to 282, 393, 394, 471 to 478, 584 to 587, 1235 to 1242, 2841 and 2842 of 1985 can conveniently be disposed of together in view of the identity of facts and contentions raised therein. The facts stated, in Civil Writ Petition No. 217 of 1985 are only adverted to for purposes of this judgment.

On an application filed by the respondentGram Panchayat under section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short the Act), the Collector ordered the eviction of the petitioner, vide his order (Annexure P.3) dated 30.9.1982. Appeal filed by the petitioner before respondent No. 2 against this order, remained unsuccessful. The petitioner impugns both these orders, i.e. Annexures P.3 and P.4 respectively.

The primary contention of Shri Kataria, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that in the year 1972 the petitioner had obtained a decree against the respondentGram Panchayat, declaring him (petitioner) to be the owner of the land in question and this decree could not be ignored by the authorities under the Act in view of the amendments brought about in the Act by the Punjab Amending Act No. 19 of 1976. It is the conceded position that it is only by virtue of these amendments that the authorities concerned, if at all, can ignore a decree passed by a Civil Court. In order to sustain his submission, the learned counsel places firm reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Gurnam Singh and others v. Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab and others, 1984 PLJ 580 : 1984 R.R.R. 187, wherein it has been categorically ruled that the decrees passed prior to the enforcement of Punjab Act No. 19 of 1976 cannot be ignored by the authorities while dealing with the matter similar to the one in hand. This judgment obviously has a binding effect on this Court. As against this, reliance is being placed by the respondents on another Division Bench judgment of this Court in Baldev Singh v. The State of Punjab through Secretary, Development and Panchayat, Punjab, Chandigarh, 1983 (1) All India Land Laws Reporter 385, wherein it has been held that decrees passed by the civil Court can be ignored in the light of the abovenoted Amending Act, i.e., Punjab Act No. 19 of 1976. But, in this case, it is not mentioned anywhere that the decree, which was ignored, was passed at any time prior to the passing of the said Amending Act. In view of that, this petition seems to be completely covered by Gurnam Singh''s case (supra). Since it is not a matter of dispute that the decree has been passed by the Civil Court in favour of the petitioner concerning the land in dispute prior to the passing of the Amending Punjab Act No. 19 of 1976, I allow these petitions and quash the impugned orders passed by the Collector and the Joint Director Panchayats (exercising the powers of Commissioner). However, there will be no order as to costs.