C.W.P. No.10246 of 1989 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.10246 of 1989 (O&M) Date of Decision. 23.03.2011 Makhu son of Dayal, village Sassa Gujran, Tehsil and District Patiala ......Petitioner Versus Joint Director, Panchayats (exercise the powers of Commissioner), Punjab, Chandigarh and another .....Respondents Present: Ms. Anjali Khosla, Advocate for Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J. 1. The writ petition challenges the order passed by the Commissioner as an Appellate Authority under the Village Common Lands Act. It appears that the 2nd respondent had filed a petition to declare the property held by the petitioner as being in unauthorized possession and seeking for ejection. The Collector by his order dated 11.05.1972 had dismissed the petition of the Gram Panchayat. In the appeal filed against the order of the Collector, the Commissioner set aside the order and declared the Gram Panchayat of the village as the owner of the property in dispute. Aggrieved at the order of the C.W.P. No.10246 of 1989 (O&M) -2- Commissioner, the writ petition is filed contending that in respect of the very same land, a Civil Court had granted a decree declaring him to be the owner and in such a situation, the Revenue Authorities have no power to declare that decree as illegal. The main grievance is that the Panchayat has no right to file an application under Section 11 in a case where adjudication is already given declining the claim of the panchayat as the owner. 2. The copy of the judgment in Civil suit No.548 of 1971 filed at the instance of one Sant Ram against the Gram Panchayat has been filed as Annexure P-2. The case was proceeded on a full-fledged trial and the trial Court has referred to the fact that the land in dispute was Shamlet Deh and was 25% of the total area of the Shamlet Deh. The Civil Court recorded the fact that Khewatdars were in use of the shares and the property in excess of 25% of the total area did not vest in the Gram Panchayat. Civil Court has decreed the suit of the plaintiffs predecessors. 3. If there had been a Civil Court decree relating to the very same property, the Revenue Authorities will have no jurisdiction to take a decision contrary to the Civil Court decree, unless the decree is shown to be obtained by collusion or secured through any vitiating circumstances. The binding nature of Civil Court decree in proceedings under the Village Common Lands Act was considered by this Court in C.W.P. No.2908 of 1998 dated 20.12.1996 where the principle of law was reiterated that the decree of Civil Court cannot be ignored without cogent evidence. It is too fundamental a proposition to be discarded. The 1st respondent did not have any authority to enter on an C.W.P. No.10246 of 1989 (O&M) -3- adjudication to hold that the property belonged to the Panchayat. 4. The impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 23, 2011 Pankaj*