- (1.) THIS case represents the third round of litigation. The petitioner who claims to be a carpenter by vocation is aggrieved by the order dated March 13, 1991. By its order the Assistant Collector 1st Grade accepted the application filed by the Gram Panchayat, village Shergarh under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act ). His appeal before the Collector having been dismissed, he has approached this court through the present proceedings. A few facts relevant for the disposal of this case may be briefly noticed.
(2.) THE peitioner claims that he came to village Shergarh more than 30 years back. He used to work as a carpenter. In the year 1972, claiming himself to be a biswadar of the village, he filed a civil suit for a declaration that he was owner of the land measuring 36 kanals 15 marlas. The petitioner's claim was conceded by the Sarpanch of the village and accordingly the civil court passed a decree in his favour on March 31, 1973. The Lagislature enacted Act No. 2 of 1981 by which section 13-A was added to the 1961 Act. It was provided that "the provisions of this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, contained in any law agreement, instrument, custom, usage, decree or order of any Court or other authority". Presumably, on account of the above provision, the petitioner filed an application under Section 13-A of the Act before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade claiming ownership of the land. Vide order dated May 31, 1982, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P-3, the Assistant Collector accepted the petitioner's claim. This order was challenged by the Gram Panchayat. The Collector set aside the order passed by the Assistant Collector on October 12, 1982. Aggrieved by the order of the Collector, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Commissioner which was accepted by him vide order dated December 6, 1983. A copy of this order has been produced on record as Annexure P-4. A perusal of this order shows that the learned Commissioner accepted the petitioner's revision petition only on the ground that the civil court had declared him as the owner of the land by virtue of the civil Court's decree.
(3.) IT appears that the claim of the petitioner was accepted solely on the ground of decree dated March 31, 1973 and therefore the Panchayat felt the necessity of challenging that decree. Accordingly; it appears that the Panchayat instituted a suit for a declaration that the decree was null and void and for the possession of the suit land. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that this suit was instituted on January 2, 1984. This suit was initially dismissed by the learned trial court. However, the appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat was accepted by the learned District Judge vide his Judgment and decree dated January 23, 1989. A copy of this Judgment has been produced on record as Annexure P-5. It may also be mentioned here that the petitioner then filed RSA No. 1078 of 1989 against the order of the learned Addl. District Judge which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated December 6, 1989 with the following observations: "kishna Sarpanch having consented to the passing of decree against the Gram Panchayat without any authority from it, the learned lower appellate court was wholly justified in reversing the decree. There is thus no merit in RSA No. 1078 of 1989. Dismissed. " Thereafter, the Panchayat moved the application under section 7 of the Act before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Kaithal. The application was contested by the petitioner. However, the Collector found that the present petitioner had "not produced any evidence from which it may be proved that the Panchayat is not the owner of the land in dispute and the respondent "the writ petitioner has taken this land from the Gram Panchayat on Patta or Batai and he is paying any amount of Patta or Batai to the Gram Panchayat. In these circumstances, the illegal possession of the respondent is proved on the land in dispute and the Gram Panchayat has a right to get the respondent ejected from the land in dispute under section 7 (2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act. " With these observations the petition of the Gram Panchayat was allowed. The petitioner filed an appeal. This appeal has been dismissed vide order dated May 18, 1992. A copy of this order is on record as Annexure P-2. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. These orders have been challenged on the ground that in view of the finding recorded by the Commissioner in his order dated December 6, 1983 (Annexure P-4) the petitioner could not have been ordered to be ejected from the land. It has been further averred that the petitioner had got a declaration of his title under section 13-A of the Act and was as such the owner of the property in dispute and the Panchayat had nothing to do with the land in dispute. Reference has also been made to a clerical error in the order of the Collector wherein a reference has been made to the order of the Commissioner instead of to that of the Collector. On these premises the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the two authorities.;