C.W.P.No.625 of 1991 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P.No.625 of 1991 Date of Decision: 03.5.2011 Charan Singh and another .....Petitioners Vs. Director of Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab and others ....Respondents CWP No.626 of 1991 Mastan Singh and another ....Petitioners Vs. Director of Rural Development and Panchayats,Punjab and others ....Respondents CWP No.627 of 1991 Sujan Singh and others ....Petitioners Vs. Additional Director, Panchayats, Punjab and another ....Respondents CWP No.628 of 1991 Gulzar Singh ....Petitioner Vs. Additional Director, Panchayats, Punjab and another ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. KANNAN **** Present : Mr. S.S. Kamboj, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.K.S. Sivia, DAG, Punjab, for respondents no.1 and 2. Mr. K.S. Hundal, Advocate for respondent no.3. .... C.W.P.No.625 of 1991 2 K. KANNAN J (Oral) 1. All the writ petitions are connected and they grapple with contentions of the respective petitioners challenging the orders of eviction passed under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. In response to the application for ejectment, all the owners were contending that the property never became vested with the Panchayat but they are themselves owners of the property. They contended that there had been suits instituted on the file of Sub Judge, Ist Class, Rajpura i.e. Suit Nos. 230, 219, 218 and 229 of 1962, for declaration and injunction against the Gram Panchayat, Baroli. The suits had been decreed after contest, on 3.1.1963. The operative portion of the judgement reads as follows :- “In the result, suit no.230,219,218 and 229 are decreed and it is declared that the land in dispute in each these suits does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. The defendant-Gram Panchayat is restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. Announced in open court. Parties be informed through their counsel.” 2. The Collector, however, rejected this contention and held that the civil court decree must have been executed within 12 years and since the same has not executed, it would have no relevance. The finding of the Collector is erroneous. A decree for injunction is operative per se and does not require to be put in execution. A provision of execution however, is resides within the Civil Procedure Code under Order 21 Rule 32, which enables a decree-holder to seek attachment/arrest of a judgement-debtor, C.W.P.No.625 of 1991 3 who causes obstruction to the possession in violation of the terms of a civil court decree. It is strange that the Collector could promote the defiance of a civil court's decree by a Panchayat. A property had already been declared to be belonging to private individuals and found not to vest with the Panchayat. The question of ordering eviction under Section 7 did not arise. The orders are erroneous and are quashed. All the writ petitions are allowed. 3.5.2011 ( K. KANNAN ) GS JUDGE