Sohalu vs The State of Haryana

B.S. Dhillon, J.—As common questions of facts and law are involved in this bunch of Writ Petitions Nos. 3769 and 3937 to 3941 of 1978, therefore, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.

The facts are not in dispute. The Gram Panchayat put in an application u/s 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act), before the Assistant Collector, claiming that the Respondents in the said applications who are now Petitioners in the writ petitions were unauthorised occupants of the land and there fore, they should be ejected. The Petitioners who are the tenants, pleaded that they were tenants under the Gram Panchayat and therefore, they were not unauthorised occupants. The matter was gone into by the Assistant Collector and vide his order dated 30th of June, 1967 passed in C. W. P. No. 3937 to 3939 and 3769 of 1978, 31st of July, 1967 in C. W. P. No. 3941 of 1978 and 5th of February, 1978 in 3940 of 1978, copies of which are Annexure P-1 attached with all the writ petitions, recorded a finding that the Respondents proceeded against were the tenants of the Gram Panchayat on the condition that they would be paying Batai to the Gram Panchayat. It was held that the Gram Panchayat was the owner of the land. It was further found that there is no evidence to show that the tenants had failed to pay the Batai and on these finding the application of the Gram Panchayat was rejected. It is not disputed that this order of the Assistant Collector was not appealed against by the Gram Panchayat or by the tenants and the said order became final.

In 1977 the Gram Panchayat moved fresh applications u/s 7 of the Act praying for the ejectment of the Respondents in those applications who are Petitioners in the writ petitions on the ground that they are in unauthorised possession. Amongst the other pleas taken by the tenants, a plea was taken that in view of the earlier order passed between the parties copy of which is Annexure P-1 with the writ petitions fresh applications u/s 7 of the Act cannot be proceeded on the ground of res judicata. This plea was negatived by the Assistant Collector relying on a Single Bench judgment of this Court in Sat Narain and Ors. v. The Financial Commissioner Punjab and Ors. 1971 P. L. J. 369. It appears that the learned authorities below have wrongly mentioned 1971 P.L.J. 155 Jug Lal and Anr. v. The Gram Panchayat of village Siwa and Ors. instead of Sat Narain''s case (supra). This finding was affirmed by the learned Collector in appeal filed by the Petitioners and hence the Petitioners have approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for quashing of the order of the Assistant Collector dated 31st of March, 1977 as also of the Collector, copies of which are Annexures P-2 and P-3 respectively attached with all the writ petitions.

In Sat Narain''s case (supra), the learned Single Judge of this Court has taken the view that the general principles of res judicata would not apply to the proceedings under the Act. In view of this, the learned Assistant Collector and the Collector held that the earlier order passed between the parties, copies of which are annexed to these petitions, would not debar the Gram Panchayat from moving fresh applications u/s 7 of the Act. The question of law whether general principles of res judicata would apply to the proceedings under the Act, came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Jee Ram v. The State of Haryana and Ors. 1980 PLJ 103; wherein it was held that the general principles of res judicata would equally apply to the proceedings under the Act. Their Lordships specifically over-ruled the Single Bench decision of this Court in Sat Narain''s case (supra). In view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jee Ram''s case (supra) it was to be held that the principle of res judicata would be applicable in the present case and the order of the Assistant Collector, copy of which is Annexure P-1, will be a bar for instituting fresh applications u/s 7 of the Act.

However, Mr. Kundu, learned Counsel for the Gram Panchayat and so also the learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Haryana has contended that if there is a fresh cause of action after the order, copy of which is Annexure P-l on the basis of which it can be shown that a case is made out for attracting the provisions of Section 7 of the Act, in that case the Gram Panchayat has always the right to move such an application. There cannot be any dispute with this proposition of law. If there is a fresh cause of action after the order of the Assistant Collector, copy of which is Annexure P-l, which is binding on the parties, the Gram Panchayat can certainly invoke the jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector u/s 7 of the Act, for getting the necessary relief. But in the present case, nothing could be shown to hold that any fresh cause of action had arisen. Vide order of the Assistant Collector, copy of which is Annexure P-I, it has been held that the Petitioners are the tenants on the condition that they would be paying Batai to the Gram Panchayat and the Gram Panchayat is the owner of the land. These findings are binding on the parties and if still after the passing of this order, it can be shown that a fresh cause of action has arisen, for making the provisions of Section 7 of the Act, applicable, the Gram Panchayat can always move such application.

For the reasons recorded above, C. W. P. Nos. 3769 and 3937 to 3-941 of 1978 are allowed and the impugned orders of the Assistant Collector and that of the Collector passed in all these cases are quashed. However, there will be no order as to costs.