J.V.GUPTA, C.J - (1.) Civil Writ Petition No.1870 of 1986, when came up for motion hearing, the same was admitted to the Full Bench with the following order. "Counsel for the respondents cites Division Bench decisions in Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 1 Land LR 385 and Gurnam Singh v. Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab, 1984 Pun LJ 580 which have taken a view contrary to each other on the same point." Later on when L.P.A. No. 13 of 1986, came up for final hearing, this fact was brought to the notice of the Bench and consequently, the said L.P.A. which was against the judgment in Civil Writ Petn. No. 217 of 1985, which was decided on 1/11/1985 (now reported in 1986 Pun LJ 404) was also ordered to be heard and decided by a Full Bench along with the said writ petition.
(2.) The facts giving rise to the said L.P.A. were that the Gram Panchayat of Village Bathoi Kalan, Tehsil and District Patiala, filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, (hereinafter called the Act), for ejectment of Labh Singh, respondent, from the land measuring 296 kanals 6 marlas, situated in village Bathoi Kalan, Tehsil and District Patiala. That application was allowed and Labh Singh respondent, was ordered to be ejected from the land, in dispute. Appeal filed by Labh Singh, respondent, did not succeed and was dismissed. Aggrieved against the same, Labh Singh, respondent, filed Civil Writ Petition No. 217 of 1985 inter alia pleading that he and other right-holders had filed a suit for declaration against the Gram Panchayat that they were the owners in possession of the land, in dispute. The Gram Panchayat was impleaded as a defendant. It contested the suit. The suit was decreed on 3/07/1972, by the subordinate Judge, Second Class, Patiala and it was declared that the plaintiffs were the owners of the suit land along with other proprietors of the village. No appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court was filed and thus the said judgment and decree which were inter partes were binding on the Panchayat. In the face of this decree, another application under Section 7 of the Act by the Gram Panchayat for the ejectment of the writ petitioner on the ground that he was in unauthorised occupation of the shamilat deh was not competent. This plea found favour with the learned single Judge who did not accept the contention of the Gram Panchayat that in view of the amendment of the principal Act, by Act No. 19 of 1976, the decree passed by the Civil Court had to be ignored by the authorities dealing with the applications under Section 7 of the Act. In reaching this conclusion, the learned single Judge relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Gurnam Singh v. Joint Director, Panchayats. Punjab, 1984 Punjab LJ 580, wherein it was held that the decrees passed by the Civil Courts prior to the enforcement of the Punjab Act No. 19 of 1976 amending the principal Act, cannot be ignored by the authorities exercising the jurisdiction under the Act. The learned single Judge distinguished the decision of another Division Bench of this Court in Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 1 Land LR 385, observing that it had not been mentioned therein as to whether the decree of the civil court had been passed before the enactment and enforcement of the Punjab Act No. 19 of 1976. The orders of the Collector and the Joint Director, Panchayats, exercising the powers of the Commissioner were thus quashed. Dissatisfied with the same, the Gram Panchayat, had filed this letters patent appeal. The main question to be decided by this Full Bench is, as to whether the judgment in Baldev Singh's case (supra), runs contrary to the decision rendered in Gurnam Singh's case (supra), or not.
(3.) Baldev Singh's case was decided a year earlier to the case reported as Bajinder Singh v. The Assistant Collector, Ist Grade Guhla, 1983 Pun LJ 116, and was disposed of at the stage of motion hearing. No argument was raised on behalf of the writ petitioner therein that Section 138 of the Act, as amended, could not set at naught the decrees passed by the civil Courts prior to the amendment of the Act by Act No. 19 of1976 (passed on 15/04/1976). Therein categorical and concurrent findings were given that the ex parte decree passed in favour of the landowners and against the Gram Panchayat was a collusive one. On the basis of that finding, the Bench observed,- "It would be manifest from the above that the law itself authorises the overriding of any decree or order of the court. Herein a concurrent finding of fact has been arrived at that the ex parte decree sought to be relied upon was a collusive one. We, therefore, see not the least ground for interference in the concurrent orders of the authorities below. " Later on, it was Bajinder Singh's case (supra), in which the vires of Section 13 of the Act, as substituted by Haryana Act No. 2 of 1981, were challenged. In that case, it was held by the Division Bench that the retrospective abrogation of jurisdiction of Civil Courts validly exercised by them from 1961 onwards, by Section 4 of the Act, Haryana Amendment Act 2 of 1981 fictionally substituting Section 13 with effect from 4/05/1961, and thereby giving retrospectivity from that date clearly amounted to trenching upon the judicial power by legislature. Consequently, the relevant part of the aforesaid section fictionally substituting Section 13 with effect from the 4th day of May, 1961, and thereby giving retrospectivity thereto from the said date, was held to be unconstitutional and struck down. Following the said judgment, another Division Bench of this Court in Gurnam Singh's case , came to the conclusion that the decrees obtained by the landowners from the civil Courts which had become final either because no appeal was filed against the same or the appeals filed had been disposed of and decrees had been sustained whereby they became the owners of the disputed land before the enforcement of Act No. 19 of 1976, could not be ignored and the amending Act will not have any effect thereon. The relevant observations made by the Bench are as under :- "The matter is not res integra and on principle, is covered in favour of the petitioners by a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Bajinder Singh v. Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Guhla, 1983 Pun LJ 116. We entirely concur in the view that this Court had taken in Bajinder Singh's (supra)". Thus, both for the State of Haryana and the State of Punjab, the view taken by this Court, was that the amendment made in the Haryana Act, by Act No. 11 of 1981 and in the Punjab Act, by Act No. 19 of 1976, whereby it was provided that the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, or any agreement, instrument, custom or usage or any decree or order, of Court or other authority, will not override the decrees passed by the competent civil Courts between the parties. Here Section 13-B of the Punjab Act, as introduced by Act No. 19 of 1976, may be reproduced which reads as under : "The provision of this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law, or any agreement, instrument, custom or usage, or any decree or order of any Court or other authority. " The equivalent provision as applicable in the State of Haryana, introduced by Haryana Act No. II of 1981, was Section 13-D, which provides as under : "The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, agreement, instrument, custom or usage, decree or order of any Court." Reading both the sections together, as introduced in both the States of Punjab and Haryana, it is quite evident that they are in pari materia with each other. That being so, in Gurnam Singh's case (supra), the Division Bench rightly followed the earlier Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Bajinder Singh's case (supra). The correctness of the said two judgments was not challenged before this Bench.;