- (1.) By way of this order, we shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 4531 and 4532 of 1988 as they involve adjudication of similar questions of fact and law. Facts necessary for adjudication of the petitions have been taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 4532 of 1988 and wherever necessary facts of the other petition shall also be referred to. Sawan Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was a proprietor in village Issapur, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, and as such had a share in "Shamilat Deh". The petitioners claim that Sawan Singh, was in cultivating possession of land measuring 7 Bighas and 5 Biswas, before 26.01.1950, but a mutation of ownership, with respect to the land in dispute, was sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat. Sawan Singh, therefore, filed Civil Suit No. 326 of 08.05.1972 before the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Rajpura, for joint possession and for declaration of his title. The Gram Panchayat filed a written statement contesting the ownership and possession of Sawan Singh, The trial court considered the pleadings and framed issues. Sawan Singh led evidence in support of his pleadings. The Gram Panchayat, however, did not lead any evidence or address arguments. Vide judgment and decree dated 10.01.1973, the Sub Judge 1st Class, Rajpura, decreed the suit for joint possession of half share of 7 Bighas and 5 Biswas.
(2.) The Gram Panchayat, filed applications under Sections 7 and 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1961 Act"), seeking adjudication of its title and ejectment of Sawan Singh, from the land in dispute. Sawan Singh pressed the decree dated 10.01.1973, into service. The Collector, vide order dated 24.05.1984, held that the decree operates as resjudicata and, therefore, dismissed the petition, filed by the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat filed an appeal. The Joint Director, Panchayat, Punjab (exercising the powers of Commissioner), accepted the appeal by holding that the decree dated 10.01.1973, is collusive and, therefore, does not operate as resjudicata, or divest the Gram Panchayat of its proprietary rights.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioners submits that as the decree dated 10.01.1973, was passed after due contest, it cannot be held to be collusive as the Gram Panchayat filed a written statement, issues were framed and the petitioners led evidence. The decree cannot be said to be collusive, merely because the Gram Panchayat did not lead evidence. It is further argued that the learned Joint Director, while holding that the decree is collusive, has not assigned any reason in support of its finding. It is argued that collusion has to be proved, as a matter of fact, by adducing evidence. The mere fact that the Gram Panchayat did not lead evidence or address arguments does not raise an inference of collusion. It is, however, accepted that if the decree is held to be collusive, it would not bind the Gram Panchayat.;