IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.21217 of 2010 Date of decision : 05.10.2011 Ram Kishan 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.Mahavir Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Ajay Kumar Gupta, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr.Pardeep Solath, Advocate for respondent No.4 Mr.Rakesh Nara, Advocate for respondents No.5 to 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-5) passed by the Collector in appeal, whereby order dated 28.3.2003 (Annexure P-4) passed by Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Jhajjar had been set aside and the application filed by the private respondents No.5 to 10, under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation ) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) had been allowed and the petitioners have been ordered to be evicted from the Gram Panchayat’s land over which they were found to be in illegal possession. The revision preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 13.9.2006, too had been dismissed by CWP No.21217 of 2010 Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak vide order dated 28.10.2010 (Annexure P-6) which is also challenged in the present case. 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, had rightly dismissed the application under Section 7 of the Act vide order dated 28.3.2003 (Annexure P-4) with a direction that firstly, the Gram Panchayat will get the title of the land in question decided under Section 13-A of the Act from the Collector. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contend that the land in dispute is described as ‘Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Kabja’ in the Jamabandi for the years 1942-43 (Annexure P-1) and Jamabandi for the year 1950-51 (Annexure P-2); and in the cultivation column, names of Sheo Karan, Sheo Nand and Sheobax predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners, in equal share, have been recorded and the nature of the land has been described as ‘Banjar Kadim’. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the land in question is not being used for any common purpose. The aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners are not sustainable. The petitioners are not recorded owners in possession of the land in dispute. The land in the Record of Rights is recorded as ‘Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Kabja’ and is `Banjar Qadim’. The petitioners cannot be said to be in cultivating possession of the Banjar Qadim land, which is recorded to be ownership of the Gram Panchayat. The Collector had recorded findings of fact that the petitioners are in illegal possession. The said finding of fact had been upheld by the Commissioner. Otherwise also, the land does not fall in the exceptions mentioned in Section 2(g) of the Act. So the above contention is rejected. 2 CWP No.21217 of 2010 The next contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Gram Panchayat had earlier filed a title suit in the year 1987, which was dismissed. So, principles of res judicata apply. Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Jhajjar had dismissed the title suit of the Gram Panchayat on the technical ground and issued direction that firstly the Gram Panchayat should get the title of the suit land decided under Section 13-A of the Act from the Collector. In that case, decision was not on merit and the proceedings were also summary in nature. So, the principles of res judicate does not apply in the present case. The findings of fact had been recorded by the Collector had been upheld by the Commissioner. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any illegality, perversity or error of jurisdiction in the orders passed by the authorities below. Therefore, we do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned 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 3