Hetu vs State of Haryana

M.M. Punchhi, J. (Oral)

The Gram Panchayat of village Dehman, Tehsil Fatehabad, District Hissar, in the year 1967 moved an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 for the ejectment of the petitioner from a parcel of land described in order, Annexure P.1, on the ground that the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation thereof. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Fatehabad vide his order dated 30.6.1967, Annexure P1, repelled the contention by holding that the petitioner was a tenant on the land in dispute and was not in wrongful or unauthorised possession of the land in question. About nine years later, the Panchayat made a similar effort to get the petitioner ejected from the same land as described in Annexure P1. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Fatehabad vide order dated 27.7.1976, Annexure P2, dismissed the application. The appeal of the Gram Panchayat, however was accepted by the Collector, Hissar on 11.1.1977 by picking up an innocuous ground that the petitioner had not been able to connect the disputed land with the aid of revenue record to Khasra numbers existing prior to the consolidation proceedings. He thus held that it was difficult to hold that the present land in the occupation of the petitioner had been allotted to him in lieu of the old Khasra numbers after consolidation proceedings. Challenging the view of the Collector on the principle of res judicata in the presence of the order, Annexure P1, the petitioner has approached this Court.

The facts are not much in dispute. The matter seems to be covered by a decision rendered by B.S. Dhillon, J. in Sohalu v. State of Haryana and others, 1981 PLJ 229. The existence of order, Annexure P1, would operate as res judicata. The findings recorded in order Annexure P1, that the petitioner was a tenant over the land described therein would remain binding in subsequent proceedings as long as the petitioner is a tenant and observes the condition of payment of the batai to the Gram Panchayat, while the Gram Panchayat was the owner of the land. The land from which ejectment of the petitioner was sought, as disclosed in Annexure P2, is exactly the same land as described in order, Annexure P1, from where he was sought to be ejected. The land is described in post consolidation numbers. The question of connection of preconsolidation Khasra numbers with the post consolidation numbers could, if at all, arise at the time of proceedings culminating in order, Annexure P1. These could not be raked up for the first time before the Collector and no decision could be pronounced thereon as was done in order, Annexure P3, on the principles of constructive res judicata. Thus relying on Sohalu''s case (supra), there is no escape but to accept this petition, quash the impugned orders of ejectment leaving it open to the Gram Panchayat to move an application in future for ejectment on a valid ground as known to law. Ordered accordingly. No costs.