CWP No.20869 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.20869 of 2010 Date of decision : 05.10.2011 Krishan Kumar and others … Petitioners Versus The Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr.R.S.Mittal, Sr.Advocate with Mr.S.K.Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Ajay Kumar Gupta, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr.Rakesh Nara, Advocate for respondents No.4 to 9. Mr.Pardeep Solath, Advocate for respondent No.10 Paramjeet Singh, J. The petitioners have filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 13.9.2006 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Collector, whereby order dated 28.3.2003 passed by Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Jhajjar had been set aside in appeal and the application filed by the private respondents No.4 to 9, under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation ) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for eviction of the petitioners, had been allowed and the petitioners have been ordered to be evicted from the Gram Panchayat land over which they are in illegal possession. The revision preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 13.9.2006, too had been dismissed by CWP No.20869 of 2010 Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak vide impugned order dated 28.10.2010 (Annexure P-8). We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned orders. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Jhajjar, rightly dismissed the application under Section 7 of the Act vide order dated 28.3.2003 with a direction that firstly, the Gram Panchayat should get the question of title of the land in question, decided under Section 13-A of the Act from the Collector. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that the land in dispute is described as ‘Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Kabja’ in the revenue record; and in the cultivation column, name of Hoshiar Singh, predecessor in interest of the petitioners is recorded, who had died and the petitioners are his legal heirs. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the land in question is not being used for any common purpose. So, the petitioners are owner in possession of the land in question. The aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners are not sustainable. The petitioners claim that they are owner in possession of the land in dispute. The land in the revenue record is recorded as ‘Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Kabja’ and is ‘Banjar Qadim’ which is non-cultivatable. So, question of cultivating the same by the petitioners does not arise. They cannot challenge the ownership of the Gram Panchayat. Otherwise also, the land does not fall in the exceptions mentioned in section 2(g) of the Act. So the above contention is rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that this Court in RSA No.561 of 1954 decided on 18.12.1958, Annexure P-1, had 2 CWP No.20869 of 2010 affirmed the possession of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. Admittedly, in the said RSA, Gram Panchayat was not a party. The general rule is that a judgment has no binding effect upon anyone who was not a party in the case. A stranger cannot take advantage of a judgment, nor can it be enforced against him. So the findings, if any, recorded in the said RSA are not binding on the respondent Gram Panchayat. The findings recorded in the RSA are of no help to the petitioners. We cannot take notice of the said judgment. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Gram Panchayat had earlier filed a petition for eviction and the same was dismissed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Jhajjar vide order dated 1.2.1989 (Annexure P-3); so the principles of res judicata apply. We are not in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that principles of res judicata apply in this case. Admittedly the order dated 1.2.1989 (Annexure P-3) is not on merits. It is held that authority has no jurisdiction to hear the matter in view of the Amendment Act of 1980, which came into force with effect from 12.2.1981. The order Annexure P-3 on record is not on merit, rather, it is on the technical ground. As such, the principles of res judicata are not applicable in the present case. The learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that from the bare reading of the order of the Collector (Annexure P-6), it is clear that earlier too the petitioners had been evicted in pursuance of Rule 22, Form L of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 vide order dated 7.6.1976 and the said order was upheld by the Collector vide order dated 23.11.1976. Once, the petitioners have been ordered to be evicted for non- payment of rent, now they cannot say that they are owners in possession. It had been found by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade that Gram Panchayat is 3 CWP No.20869 of 2010 the owner of the property in earlier proceedings which had become final. Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Jhajjar ordered eviction of the petitioners for non-payment of rent. We are of the considered view that petitioners being tenants cannot challenge the plea of ownership of Gram Panchayat. So, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground also. Both the Collector and the Commissioner have recorded concurrent findings of fact after appreciation of evidence available on the record. The learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any illegality, perversity and error of jurisdiction in the impugned orders. Consequently, we do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the orders passed by the authorities below which may warrant any interference in the present writ petition. So the writ petition is hereby dismissed. No Order as to costs. ( PARAMJEET SINGH) JUDGE ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE 05.10.2011 sd 4