IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.2692 of 2010 Date of Decision: March 16, 2011 Gram Panchayat, Dahar, Tehsil & District Panipat .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Saini, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.5. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. Challenge in this petition is to Order dated 29.9.2006 (Annexure P-4) passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Panipat; Order dated 15.5.2007 (Annexure P-3) passed by Collector, Panipat; and Order dated 11.12.2009 (Annexure P-6) passed by Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak. CWP No.2692 of 2010 [2] 2. Gram Panchayat, Dahar, Tehsil & District Panipat, filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) as applicable to Haryana, in regard to the land measuring 122 kanal 9 marlas, praying for ejectment of respondent No.5, Mange Ram son of Duli Chand. 3. Vide Order dated 29.9.2006 (Annexure P-4), it has been held that neither the question of title of land has been decided nor in regard to the fact that work of Dohli has ended. It has been held that without getting the said questions decided, Panchayat cannot file the application under Section 7 of the Act. Under the circumstances, the case was adjourned sine die. 4. Petitioner carried an appeal which has been dismissed by Collector, Panipat, vide Order dated 15.5.2007 (Annexure P-5) upholding the order (Annexure P-4) passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Panipat. Likewise, Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner, vide Order dated 11.12.2009 (Annexure P-6) while holding in the following terms:- “In these circumstances, I agree with the findings of the collector that the Gram Panchayat was required to get the Dohli tenure ended and title of land decided by the civil court but instead of complying with the order of CWP No.2692 of 2010 [3] divisional commissioner, the gram panchayat has again filed ejectment potions against the respondent which is not maintainable. Regarding the judgments of the civil courts dated 15.5.2004 and 18.11.2005, the collector has rightly observed that these suits were filed by the respondent and not by the Gram Panchayat and no issue for cancellation/ending of Dohli was framed therein. so, in the light of the observations made above, I do not fined any illegality in the impugned orders of the lower courts and accordingly, finding non force in the present revision petition, the same is dismissed.” 5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that Civil Suit No.56 of 2003, titled ‘Manga Dass chela Mahant Lachhman Dass resident of village Dahar vs. Ram Dass & others’ was instituted on 8.4.1994, praying for declaration to the effect that plaintiff is entitled to continuous cultivation as Dohlidar on land detailed in the suit. Under such circumstances, final adjudication has been made by the Civil Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.5.2004 that has attained finality, appeal of Manga Dass having been dismissed vide judgment dated 18.11.2005 (Annexure P-3) passed by Additional District Judge, Panipat. 6. Learned counsel for the private respondent contends that there is no adjudication in regard to the rights of the petitioner and therefore, the order (Annexure P-4) passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade and affirmed by appellate and revisional authorities is on relevant basis. CWP No.2692 of 2010 [4] 7. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel. 8. In the civil suit mentioned above, Gram Panchayat has been impleaded as defendant No.2. A specific issue was framed to the effect, “whether plaintiff was validly adopted as chela by Mahant Lachhman Dass and is in possession of the suit land as Dohlidar? If so, its effect. OPP”, amongst other issues. The Gram Panchayat contested the suit against the plaintiff. The suit has been dismissed while holding thus:- “39. Resultantly, in view of my findings on the foregoing issues, the suit fails and is hereby dismissed. It is held that the plaintiff has failed to prove himself as Chela of Mahant Lachhman Dass and as Dohlidar this case. He has also failed to prove that he is entitled to retain possession of the sit property as proprietor. Hence, the possession of the plaintiff is unauthorized. There is no order as to coasts. Decree- sheet be prepared accordingly and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.” 9. In the face of the findings recorded by the Civil Court, the order (Annexure P-6) passed by Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, is rendered de hors the relevant facts. It is not imperative for the Gram Panchayat to file a suit. What is relevant is that an issue should be brought before a Court, adjudicated and decided. The issue relevant to the controversy was raised, although at the instance of Manga Dass, which has been considered and decided against him as per judgment and decree noticed CWP No.2692 of 2010 [5] above. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that there is no impediment for the authorities under the Act, to proceed with the proceedings pending against the petitioner under Section 7 of the Act. 10. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Order dated 29.9.2006 (Annexure P-4); Order dated 15.5.2007 (Annexure P-3); and Order dated 11.12.2009 (Annexure P-6) are hereby quashed. 11. The matter is remanded to Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Panipat, with direction that the issue be adjudicated and a decision given within a period of four months of receipt of certified copy of the order. (AJAI LAMBA) March 16, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?