IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 17118 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 26.09.2008 Pal Singh .... PETITIONER Versus The State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. B.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) The petitioner, who is Panch of Gram Panchayat Village Khumna, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ in the nature of quo warranto to the official respondents not to permit respondent No.4 to hold the office of Sarpanch of the aforesaid Gram Panchayat, on the ground that he is not eligible to hold the office being in illegal possession of the land of the Gram Panchayat. It has also been prayed that the official respondents be directed to consider and decide the representation dated 21.8.2008 (Annexure P-3) made by the petitioner for taking appropriate action against respondent No.4 under Section 20 of the Punjab Panchayati CWP No. 17118 of 2008 -2- Raj Act, 1994. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the contents of the petition. Undisputedly, in this case, Gram Panchayat, Village Khumna, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, initiated ejectment proceedings against respondent No.4 under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, alleging therein that he is in illegal and unauthorized occupation of the land in question, which is claimed by the Gram Panchayat to be vesting in it. Initially, the ejectment order was passed by the Collector and that order was upheld in appeal. However, aggrieved against those orders, respondent No.4 filed CWP No. 10939 of 2005, in which this Court, while allowing the writ petition on 4.12.2007, set aside the order of ejectment passed against him, while observing as under :- “After going through the impugned orders, we are of the view that in the absence of any copy of the jamabandi or any other revenue documents, the orders Annexures P/1 and P/2 no where shows that the land in dispute is owned by the Gram Panchayat. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the petitioner is in possession of any portion of the land owned by the Gram Panchayat, Khumna. Resultantly, this writ petition is accepted and both the orders Annexures P/1 and P/2 are hereby quashed.” In our opinion, once the lis between the Gram Panchayat and CWP No. 17118 of 2008 -3- respondent No.4 has been decided by this Court, in which a categoric finding has been recorded that there is no evidence to show that respondent No.4 is in illegal possession of the land in dispute or that the same is owned by the Gram Panchayat, the said finding will operate as res judicata between Gram Panchayat and respondent No.4. Claim of the petitioner here is that respondent No.4 is in illegal possession of the land of the Gram Panchayat and this dispute has already been decided. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the instant petition. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE September 26, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) ndj JUDGE