IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.204 of 1987 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.11.2009 Vir Pal and others -----Appellants Vs. Chet Ram ----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL Present:- Mr. A.S.Tewatia, Advocate for the appellants. None for the respondent. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the defendants against decree granted by the courts below in favour of respondent-plaintiff declaring order of the Assistant Collector dated 11.10.1982, as affirmed by the Collector on 17.3.1983, to be void and restraining the appellants from dispossessing them. 2. Case of the plaintiff is that he was owner in possession and apprehended dispossession by the appellants on the basis of a void order of the Assistant RSA No.204 of 1986 (O&M) Collector as affirmed by Collector, annulling decree of Civil Court in favour of the plaintiff. 3. Case of the appellants was that the suit was not maintainable as the land in dispute was vested in the Panchayat under the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the 1961 Act’) and the decree dated 2.4.1966 was void, which could be annulled by the Assistant Collector under the provisions of the said Act. 4. Main issue between the parties was Issue No.1 relating to validity of order of Assistant Collector recording change of title from the title of plaintiff to that of the defendants. 5. The trial court after referring to the revenue record including Ex.P5 Jamabandi for the year 1965-66 held that the plaintiff was entered to be in possession of the suit property. On that basis, decree dated 2.4.1966 had been duly passed in favour of the respondent by the Civil Court. The said decree could not have been set aside by the Assistant Collector. 2 RSA No.204 of 1986 (O&M) 6. On appeal, finding of the trial court has been affirmed. It was held that the decree of civil court could not be declared to be void by the Assistant Collector in view of law laid down by this Court in Gurnam Singh and others v. Joint Director Panchayats Punjab and others, 1984 PLJ 580. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appeal involves following substantial questions of law:- “i) Whether jurisdiction of the Civil courts is barred under Section 158(2)(vi)? ii) Whether alternative remedy is available under section 13 of the Land Revenue Act? iii) Whether a document neither exhibited nor placed on record can be taken into consideration by oral submission made in Court?” He, however, fairly states that in DB judgment of this Court in Bajinder Singh and another v. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Guhla and others, 1983 PLJ 116, it 3 RSA No.204 of 1986 (O&M) has been held that the authorities under the 1961 Act could not annul decree passed by civil court. 9. This Court in Bajinder Singh (supra) held that power to annul a decree of civil court could not be conferred on Assistant Collector as it will affect independence of judicial process. It was a different matter that the law itself could be changed even retrospectively to remove error in a judgment. The courts below having held that right of the plaintiffs as per decree of civil court dated 2.4.1966 could not be taken away by an order passed by Assistant Collector which view is consistent with law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no substantial question of law arises. 10. The appeal is dismissed. November 9, 2009 (Adarsh Kumar Goel) ‘gs’ Judge 4