Ram Avtar vs Gram Panchayat village Niyamatpur

J.V. Gupta, J.

This is plaintiff''s second appeal whose suit for declaration has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

Land measuring 35 Kanal 17 Marlas is owned by Gram Panchayat of village Niyamatpur. Earlier to the present litigation, the Gram Panchayat filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961, against the plaintiff Ram Avtar, before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade Narnaul, which application was allowed and an order of ejectment was passed against him. The appeal filed before the Collector was also dismissed. Ram Avtar plaintiff then filed a civil suit challenging the said order which suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide order darted 8.1.1968. However, in appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, accepted the same vide judgment and decree dated 15.10.1968, in which it was held that the plaintiff Ram Avtar was a tenantatwill under the Gram Panchayat and thus, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, could not pass an order of ejectment under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, Subsequently, Gram Panchayat filed a suit for ejectment against Ram Avtar in the Revenue Court under Section 73(3)(e) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, which was decreed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Narnaul, on 23.7.1874. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff was also dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 17.9.1974 and subsequent revision petitions before the Commissioner as well as before the Financial Commissioner were also dismissed. In the present suit, plaintiff Ram Avtar challenged the revenue authorities on the ground that orders made by them are illegal, without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.

The suit was resisted by the Gram Panchayat, inter alia, on the grounds that the orders of ejectment passed by the revenue authorities are in accordance with law. The plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit nor the same was maintainable. The trial Court come to the conclusion that the orders passed by revenue authorities were perfectly legal and binding upon the plaintiff. Consequently, the plaintiff''s suit was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the said finding of the trial Court.

In this case, the conduct of the plaintiffs speaks for itself. Earlier he filed a civil suit challenging the order passed by the revenue authorities under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, in which the plaintiff was held to be a tenantatwill and consequently, the said order was set aside. Now when the Gram Panchayat filed a suit for ejectment under Section 73(3) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, the said order was maintained upto the Financial Commissioner. Having failed upto the highest revenue Court, the plaintiff filed the present suit challenging the said order to be illegal and void and without jurisdiction. Thus, from the conduct of the plaintiff, he is estopped to challenge the finding of the Courts below. Otherwise also, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the concurrent findings recorded by the two Courts below to interfere with in the second appeal.

Consequently the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.