Rajive Bhalla, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 4043 of 1985, 4425 of 1985, 580 of 1987 and 3384 of 1987, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. The facts, which are almost identical, have been extracted from C.W.P. No. 4043 of 1985.
2. The dispute, in the present writ petition, is whether judgments and decrees of civil Courts, passed before the coming into force of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Amending Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Amending Act, 1976'), are binding upon the Gram Panchayat and if so to what extent.
3. The petitioners herein filed a civil suit No. 5 of 6.1.1965, for possession of the land in dispute. Vide order dated 18.2.1965, the Sub Judge, 1st Class Patiala decreed the suit. The Gram Panchayat did not impugn the aforementioned judgment and decree. On 15.4.1976, the Legislature amended the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to '1961 Act') by enacting the Amending Act, 1976.
4. Section 7 of the amending Act, 1976 incorporated Section 13 in 1961 Act, pursuant whereto the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to adjudicate disputes regarding right or interest in shamlat deh was barred. Section 8 of the amending Act, 1976 inserted Section 13-B in 1961 Act. Section, 13-B postulates that the provisions of 1961 Act, shall have effect notwithstanding any thing to the contrary in any law, or any agreement, instrument, custom or usage or any decree or order of any Court or other authority.
5. The Gram Panchayat filed a petition under Section 7 and 11 of 1961 Act praying therein that as the Gram Panchayat was the owner of the land, the petitioners be dis-pos-sessed therefrom. In response, the petitioners denied the Gram Panchayat's title and on the basis of the judgment and decree of the Civil Court, dated 18.2.1965, claimed to be owners in possession of the disputed land.
6. The Collector accepted the petition, filed by the Gram Panchayat and held that the judgment and decree dated 18.2.1965 of the Civil Court, relied upon by the petitioners, did not affect the rights of the Gram Panchayat over the land in dispute, in view of the provisions of Section 13-B of 1961 Act. The Collector, vide order dated 21.12.1982 (Annexure P-2) also directed the petitioners' ejectment.
7. Dis-satisfied with the aforementioned order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Joint Director Panchayats, exercising powers of the Commissioner, under 1961 Act. Numerous other similar matters, arising from different orders, passed by different Collectors, wherein private parties relied upon decrees of Civil Courts, to assert their title, were also pending. The appellate authority consolidated these appeals and, vide a common judgment dated 17.5.1985 (Annexure P-3), dismissed them. The appeals, consolidated and disposed of by the appellate authority, are as follows:-
S. Under Particulars of the case
No.
1. 24/Patiala/ 1983 Gurdev Singh s/o Prem
Singh Village Mavi
Sappan, Tehsil Samana,
District Patiala.
2. 62/Patiala/ 1983 Sanu Singh s/o Sobha Singh
3. 68/Patiala/ 1983 Pritarri Singh, Mukand Singh
s/o Puran Singh
4. 78/Patiala/ 1983 Kartar Singh, Prem Singh sons
of Nandu, Chandu s/o Saun Singh.
5. 79/Patiala 1983 Samadhi Dass Chela Chattar Dass etc.
6. 298/Patiala 1983 Chanan Singh s/o Wazir Singh
The appellants, in the aforementioned appeals, filed separate writ petitions in this Court, as follows:-
1. C.W.P. No. 580 of 1987 arising - Gurdev Singh.
from Appeal No. 24/Patiala
2. C.W.P. No. 4425 of 1985 arising - Saun Singh
from Appeal No. 62/Patiala
3. C.W.P. No. 5862 of 1985 arising - Pritam Singh and
from Appeal No. 68/Patiala/1983 Mukand Singh
4. C.W.P. No. 3384 of 1987 arising - Kartar Singh, Prem
from Appeal No. 78/Patiala/83 singh
5. C.W.P. No. 4043/1985 arising from - Chela Chattar Dass etc.
Appeal No. 79/Patiala/83 - Samadhi Dass.
The aforementioned writ petitions were admitted and remained pending. In the meanwhile, a controversy arose as to whether the amending Act, 1976 would employer the authorities under Act, 1961, as also the Gram Panchayat to ignore judgments and decrees of Civil Courts passed prior to the enforcement of the Amending Act on 15.4.1976. A Full Bench of this Court in a judgment reported as Gram Panchayat Village Batholi Kalan v. Sagar Ram and Ors., 1 (1991-1)99 P.L.R. 250 (F.B.), held that the amendment incorporating Section 13-B of 1961 Act was prospective. Only such judgments and decrees could be ignored, that were passed after the enforcement of the Amending Act, 1976 on 15.4.1976. It was, thus, held that judgments and decrees, passed prior to the amendment, could not be ignored by invoking the provisions of Section 13-B of 1961 Act, as amended, by the Amending Act, 1976.
8. As noticed above, the appellate authority, vide the impugned order, dated 17.5.1985 (Annexure P-3), had dismissed six appeals.One of these appeals was made the subject-matter of C.W.P. No. 5862 of 1985, Pritam Singh and Mukand Singh v. Joint Director Panchayats Punjab and Ors. Vide order dated 15.4.1991, this Court allowed the aforementioned writ petition and set-aside the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner. The Gram Panchayat preferred Letter Patent Appeal No. 376 of 1992, Gram Panchayat Village Mavi Sappan v. The Joint Director Panchayats Punjab and Ors. The said appeal was dismissed, vide order dated 10.3.1992 upholding the order passed in the aforementioned writ petition, whereby the order of the appellate authority, which is also impugned in the present writ petitions, was quashed.
9. On the above factual matrix, counsel for the petitioners contends that as the order of the appellate authority (Annexure P-3) has already been set aside by this Court in C.W.P. No. 5862 of 1985, and L.P.A. No. 376 of 1992 against the said judgment, has also been dismissed, the result in the present writ petition must also follow suit.
10. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, does not deny that the order of the appellate authority, impugned in the present writ petition, has been set aside in C.W.P. No. 5862 of li985, and L.P.A. No. 376 of 1992 against the above writ petition has been dismissed. He, however, asserts that the order of the Collector was based upon different facts. Different judgments and decrees, had been relied upon by the petitioners in each case. Therefore, the matter should be remitted to the Collector for a decision afresh, after taking into consideration the Full Bench judgment and the order judgments, referred to above.
11. It is further contended that the Full Bench judgment, while holding the judgments and decrees, passed before 15.4.1976, cannot be ignored, does not deprive the Gram Panchayat of its right to impugn the legality or validity of the said judgments and decrees on the plea of fraud and/or collusion etc.
12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
13. I am of the considered opinion that in view of the judgment of the Full Bench in Gram Panchayat Village Batholi Kalan 's case (supra), and the judgment of the LPA Bench, upholding the order of the learned Single Judge in C-W.P. No. 5862 of 1985 the present writ petition must succeed. As the judgments and decrees, relied upon by the petitioners, in asserting title, were passed before 15.4.1976, the date the Amending Act came into force, the said judgments and decrees could not have been ignored by the appellant authority and the Collector.The order of the appellate authority having already been set aside in C.W.P. No. 376 of 1992, impugning the order,passed in the writ petition, having been dismissed, the same result must follow in the present writ petition.
14. However, there is another aspect, that merits attention. The appellate authority consolidated six appeals and decided them by a common order. These appeals were filed by different appellants, against different orders, passed by the Collector. In each of these cases, the judgments and decrees of the Civil Courts, relied upon by the appellants therein, were different. The proceedings before the Collector were thus, based on different facts, between different parties and reliance was placed upon different judgments and decrees of the different Civil Courts. In my opinion, even if the judgments and decrees, passed prior to 15.4.1976 are not to be ignored, the Gram Panchayat cannot be prevented from impugning the legality or validity of the judgments and decrees on other grounds that may be available under law.
15. In this view of the matter, the interest of justice would be served if the impugned orders (Annexures P-2 and P-3) are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Collector for a decision afresh, in accordance with law.
16. In view of what has been held above, the present writ petition, as also C.W.P. Nos. 4425 of 1985, 580 and 3384 of 1987 area allowed and the orders impugned therein are set aside. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the Collector on 22.6.2005. The Collector shall make every endeavour to dispose of the case within a period of six months from the date any of the parties produces a certified copy of this order.
No order as to costs.