AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.S. Mongia, J.
The petitioner had filed a civil suit on 7th October, 1964, in the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class Bassi, District Patiala that they were the owners and in possession of agricultural land mentioned in the plaint and respondentGram Panchayat had no interest in it and mutation had been wrongly sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat in respect of the suit land. The respondentGram Panchayat was duly served, but it did not appear before the trial Court.
It was alleged by the petitioners in their plaint before the trial Court that there was 1270 Kanals 19 Marlas Shamlat Deh land in village Mirpur and the petitioners had 2/9 share in the said Shamlat Deh. It was further stated that the land in dispute was shown as Shamlat Deh in the settlement of 196061 B.K., and the land was not assessed to land revenue, but the proprietors of the village were using the Shamlat land according to their shares in the land held by them in the village. It was further alleged that about 40 years ago, the proprietors divided the Shamlat Deh land and the suit land had fallen to their share since then. The further allegation was that the Gram Panchayat had got the mutation of the land attested in its favour on 18th May, 1957. Since the petitioners were in use and occupation of the land for the last more than 12 years as owners and they had sought the declaration that they were in possession of the land as owners and the Gram Panchayat had no right, title or interest in the suit land.
On the basis of the evidence produced by the petitioners (plaintiffs) before the trial Court, the suit was decreed in their favour exparte on 29th January, 1965. The Gram Panchayat had moved an application for setting aside the exparte decree, but vide order dated 31st August, 1966, the said application was dismissed. The appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat against the above said order was also dismissed on 20th March, 1967. The net result of all this was that the exparte decree in favour of the petitioners, dated 29th January, 1965 became final.
The Gram Panchayat, respondent filed an application under Section 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for eviction of the petitioners from the land in dispute on the ground that the Gram Panchayat was the owner of the land in dispute and the petitioners were in unauthorised possession thereof. However, the said application was dismissed on 28th April, 1971 by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Bassi, holding that there was no doubt in his mind that the land in dispute was not Shamlat land, as had been held by the judgment of the Civil Court. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal. The Financial Commissioner vide his order dated 13th December, 1972 upheld the order of the Commissioner and he observed as under :
"It is clear that the Civil Suit filed by the respondents was in regard to their title to the land in question. The main question for consideration was whether the respondents were in possession of the land in question as owners or whether the land in question was Shamlat Deh. It is clear that the subject matter of the suit did not arise out of the operation of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation), Act, 1961. The provisions of Section 13 of the Actibid were thus not applicable. The Assistant Collector, the Collector and the Commissioner were thus right in relying upon the findings of the Civil Court in favour of the respondents.
There are thus no grounds for interfering. The Revision Petition fails and is dismissed."
Thereafter, another bout started and the Gram Panchayat again moved an application under Section 7 of the Act for ejectment of the petitioner from the land in dispute. It seems that at some later stage, the Gram Panchayat had also filed a petition under Section 11 of the Act. Vide order dated 16th July, 1982, the Collector decided in favour of the Gram Panchayat and declared Gram Panchayat as the owner of the land in dispute and ordered the ejectment of the petitioners. The decree of the Civil Court in favour of the petitioners was ignored on the basis that the same was obtained collusively. The order of the Collector has been attacked as Annexure P1 to this petition. The appeal of the petitioners before the Commissioner was also dismissed on 29th January, 1986 (Annexure P2). These orders have been assailed in the present writ petition.
Mr. J.N. Kaushal, Senior Advocate, learned appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has submitted that the Revenue Courts could not ignore the Civil Court decree, which was obtained prior to the introduction of Section 13B in the Act, by Act No. 19 of 1976. For this purpose, he relied upon the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Gram Panchayat, Village Bathoi Kalan v. Jagar Ram and others, 1991 PLR 260. He further submitted that though in the present case, the decree was not collusive, but was exparte and the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court had upheld that decree by not setting aside the exparte decree, at according to the learned counsel, even if it is held that the decree was collusive, the same could not be ignored by the Revenue Court till the same had been upset by the competent Civil Court. The learned counsel went on to submit that the Gram Panchayat had failed in the proceedings under the Act right upto financial Commissioner and no second application under Section 7 of the Act lay before the Authorities under the Act.
The learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 on the other hand, submitted that according to the Full Bench, the validity of the Civil Court decree could be challenged before the competent Civil Court and the Revenue Court was a substitute of the Civil Court, and, therefore, the Authorities under the Act could go into the validity of the decree. I am afraid, the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has not correctly appreciated the ratio of the Full Bench. It was observed by the Full Bench as under :
"However, it may be made clear that the parties will always be at liberty to get those decrees set aside on the grounds of collusion, fraud etc. or otherwise, by a competent Court. Unless the said decrees passed by the Civil Courts, are held to be collusive or obtained by fraud, by a competent Civil Court, the same could not be ignored by the authorities under the Act in view of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in Bajinder Singh''s case (supra), the correctness of which was not challenged before us."
It is clear from the observations of the Full Bench, in which I was one of the members, that the decree of the Civil Court had to be got set aside from a competent Civil Court and not by a Revenue Court. The Revenue Court had no jurisdiction to ignore a Civil Court decree obtained prior to the introduction of Section 13B in the year 1976. That being so, the Civil Court decree could not have been ignored by the Authorities under the Act and the petitioner could not be ordered to the ejected.
The learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 further submitted that the ejectment had been ordered from different khasra numbers than the one of which Civil Court decree had been obtained. He has produced before us the Civil Court decree. Just to make it clear and to avoid any further litigation, I am mentioning the Khasra Numbers from which the Civil Court decree obtained by the petitioners on 7th October, 1964 from which the respondentGram Panchayat cannot eject the petitioners :
"Khata No. 58/88, Rect. No. 28. Khasra No. 12/2 (03), 13/2 (34) Min 18/1 (11) 17 Min (40), 24/1 (216), 24/2 (40), 25 Min (20), Rect No. 32 Khasra No. 4/1 (70), 4/2 (03), 5/1 (116), 5/2 (69), 6/1 (111) 6/2 (58), 7 (80), 13 (49), 14 (718), 15 (80), 16 (612)17 (114) 25(03), REct. No. 33, Khasra No. 1 Min (40) 0 Min (40) 10 (718), 11/1 (40), 11/2 (216), 12 (80), 18 (80), 19/1 (69) 19/2 (016), 20/1 (03), 22/2 (79), 21 (47), 22/1 (59), 22/2 (111), 23 (718), 24 Mins (40), Rct. No. 36 Khasra No. 3/1 (26), 3/1 (26), 3/2 (40), 4 (80), 5 (718), 6 (219), 7 (510), 8/1 (03), 8/2 (49), 19 (80), Rect No. 22 Khasra Nos. 1 (78), 2 (80), 3/1 (16), 3/2 (418), 8 (111), 9/1 (04), 9/2 (63), 0 (16), 12 (014), Qitta No. 265/2 as per Jamabandi for the year 196061, situated in village Mirpur, Tehsil Sirhind"
For the view I am taking in the matter, it is not necessary to go into any other point.
For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is allowed, the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner, Annexures P1 and P2, dated 16th July, 1982 and 29th January, 1986, respectively are hereby quashed to the extent of the land mentioned in Khasra Numbers above. There will be no order as to costs.