- (1.) Descendants of Mehar Singh, who are petitioners before us, filed a civil suit in the year 1974 to challenge the order of the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Sangrur, dated 25.3.1974 passed under section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the basis that they and prior to them, Mehar Singh, had been cultivating 68 Bighas 17 Biswas of land since before 1950 and as such it did not vest in the Gram Panchayat as Shamlat Deh and the order of the Assistant Collector was, therefore, null and void and prayed for permanent injunction to restrain the Gram Panchayat from executing the ejectment order or from interfering in their possession. The trial court by judgement and decree dated 16-8-1978, decreed the suit as prayed for. The Gram Panchayat went up in appeal and the appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge on 18.4.1979. Thereafter, the Gram Panchayat came to this court R.S.A No. 1854 of 1979 which was allowed on 19.3.1981 in view of the amendment made in section 13 of the Act, which took away the jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether any property or any right to or interest in any property is or is not Shamlat Deh or to question the legality of any action taken by the Panchayat under the Act. After setting aside the judgments and decree of the two courts below, it was ordered that the plaint be returned to the plaintiffs for presentation to the Collector having jurisdiction in the matter. On the basis of the aforesaid order, according to the petitioners, the plaint was returned to them on 9.9.1981 and on the same date it was presented to the Collector, Sangrur, alongwith an application that it was being refiled in view of the High Court's order and the same may be entertained and suitable orders passed. The application for entertaining the suit was dismissed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Sangrur exercising the powers of the Collector under the Act, by order dated 6.1.1982 (Annexure P.3) on coming to the conclusion that it was not filed within limitation. The true translation of the relevant portion of order rejecting the application after noticing the arguments of both the sides is as follows:- "After hearing the counsel and going through the record, I have come to the conclusion that the application is not within limitation. Therefore, the application of the applicant is hereby dismissed. Order pronounced."
(2.) Thereafter the petitioners filed an application under section 11 of the Act before the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Sangrur exercising the powers of the Collector under the Act, for determination of title claiming to be owners of 68 Bighas and 17 Biswas of land on the plea that they and their predecessors-in-interest had been in possession thereof since before 1950 and, therefore, under section 2(g) of the Act, it did not vest in the Panchayat. In para 11 of the application, it was stated as follows:- "11.That the respondent No. 1 (meaning Gram Panchayat) on 16.5.1982, threatened to take the possession of the land in dispute from the applicants. This gave a cause of action to the applicants to file this application. Hence, this present application is within limitation from 16.5.1982 when the last cause of action arose. An affidavit in the support of this allegation is attached herewith". Along with the application under section 11 of the Act, the petitioners filed an application for the grant of interim injunction restraining the respondent-Gram Panchayat from dispossessing them till the matter of title was decided under the Act.That application was allowed vide order dated 27.8.1982 (Annexure P.5) and it was ordered that the petitioners should not be dispossessed from the land in dispute till the decision of the application under section 11 of the Act. Against the aforesaid interim order, the Gram Panchayat went up in appeal before the Commissioner, who was empowered to hear the appeal under section 11(2) of the Act. When the petitioners received notice of the appeal, they put in appearance and raised the contention that no appeal lay under section 11(2) of the Act against the interim orders and the same should be dismissed as incompetent. The leanred Commissioner noticed this argument and thereafter noticed the argument of the Gram Panchayat that the earlier application filed by the petitioners under section 11 of the Act was dismissed by the Collector on 6.1.1982 and the appeal filed by the petitioners against that order was dismissed by the Commissioner on 5..5.1982 and, therefore, the Collector wrongly entertained another application under section 11 of the Act and erred in granting interim stay. The learned Commissioner side tracked the issue on maintainability of appeal under section 11(2) of the Act against the interim order but proceeded to hold vide order dated 16.3.1983 (Annexure P.6) that in view of section 12 of the Act the Collector could not entertain another application under section 11(1) and if the Collector goes on entertaining the repeated applications like this, there could not be any finality. Thereafter it was observed as follow:- "The Collector ought to have not entertained second application.The appeal of the Gram Panchayat is accepted. Orders passed by the Collector on 27.8.1982 are hereby quashed and further all proceedings pending before the Collector under section 11 of the Act in this case are also quashed as I find they are all without jurisdiction. " Against the aforesaid order, C.W.P. No. 2744 of 1983 has been filed in this Court.
(3.) It deserves to be recalled that against the order of the Collector dated 6.1.1982, referred to above, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The learned Commissioner vide order dated 5.5.1982, dismissed the appeal after recording a finding that the plaint was returned on 31.8.1981 and it was refiled on 15.10.1981 beyond the period of 30 days as prescribed by rule 21-A of the Rules framed under the Act and as such was time barred.C.W.P. No. 3650 of 1983 was filed on 2.8.1983 during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition (C.W.P.No. 2744 of 1983) to impugn the orders dated 6.1.1982 and 5.5.1982.Since the two writ petitions arise out of the same matter, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.;