Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Letters Patent Appeal No. 13 of 1986

Attorney(S)

R.S Hundal and Jasbir Singh, Advocates,
O.P Goyal, Sr. Advocate with I.S Sagu, Advocate,
H.S Mattewal, A.G Punjab with H.S Riar Sr. D.A.G, for the State.
Sarjit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Jagdev Singh, Advocate, for the private respondent No. 2.
Rajiv Kataria, Advocate.

Judges

J.V Gupta, C.J
M.S Liberhan
R.S Mongia, JJ.

Acts

Haryana Act, by Act No. 11 of 1981 and in the Punjab Act, by 1991 P. &H./11 G-38 VI Act No. 19 of 1976,
SECTION 7 PUNJAB VILLAGE COMMON LANDS REGULATION ACT 1961
Punjab Village Common L-ands (Regulation) Haryana Amendment Act, 1974
section 13-B of the Punjab Act, as introduced by Act No. 19 of 1976,
Punjab Act No. 19 of 1976 amending the principal Act,
Haryana Amendment Act No. II of 1981, the Act
Haryana Act No. II of 1981, was Section 13-D,
sub-section (3) of section 13-A,
section 11 of the Punjab Act,
sub-section (3) of Section 4,

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Full Bench Opinion Summary (V. Gupta, C.J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

Civil Writ Petition No. 1870 of 1986 was admitted to a Full Bench because counsel for the respondents cited Division Bench decisions that appeared to conflict (Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab and Gurnam/Gurnara Singh v. Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab). Subsequently, Letters Patent Appeal (L.P.A.) No. 13 of 1986, which challenged the judgment in Civil Writ Petition No. 217 of 1985 (decided November 1, 1985 and reported as 1986 Pun LJ 404), was directed to be heard by the same Full Bench.

The substantive dispute arose from an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, filed by the Gram Panchayat of Village Bathoi Kalan for the ejectment of Labh Singh from 296 kanals 6 marlas of land. The application was allowed and Labh Singh's appeal was dismissed. Labh Singh then filed Civil Writ Petition No. 217 of 1985, pleading inter alia that he and other right-holders had earlier obtained a civil decree (trial Court decree dated July 3, 1972) declaring them owners of the suit land; no appeal against that decree had been filed, making it binding inter partes on the Panchayat.

The learned single Judge quashed the orders of the Collector and the Joint Director (exercising the powers of the Commissioner), relying on the Division Bench decision in Gurnam Singh v. Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab (1984 Pun LJ 580), which held that decrees passed by civil courts prior to the enforcement of Punjab Act No. 19 of 1976 could not be ignored by authorities exercising jurisdiction under the Act. The Gram Panchayat filed L.P.A. No. 13 of 1986 challenging that quashing. The central question for the Full Bench was whether the decision in Baldev Singh (1983 (1) Land LR 385) runs contrary to Gurnam Singh (1984 Pun LJ 580).

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the judgment in Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab (1983 (1) Land LR 385) is contrary to the decision in Gurnam Singh v. Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab (1984 Pun LJ 580) and, if so, which view prevails.
Whether decrees passed by competent civil courts in favour of landowners prior to the amendment effected by Punjab Act No. 19 of 1976 can be ignored by authorities exercising jurisdiction under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act (including under the amending provision section 13-B as introduced by Act No. 19 of 1976).
Whether administrative authorities (e.g., Assistant Collector) deciding applications under the Act may independently examine and set aside civil court decrees on the ground of collusion (i.e., whether a finding of collusion by administrative authorities suffices to ignore such decrees).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant (Gram Panchayat) — Arguments

The Assistant Collector, while deciding an application under section 11 of the Punjab Act as amended, could examine the decree of the civil court and, if it found the decree to be collusive, could ignore or set it aside for the purposes of proceeding under the Act.
In support of that proposition, the appellant relied upon the observations in Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab (1983 (1) Land LR 385), where both the District Development and Panchayat Officer and the appellate authority had reached concurrent findings that an ex parte decree was collusive, and the authorities' overriding of that decree was sustained.

Respondent (Labh Singh / writ petitioner) — Arguments

The writ petitioner (Labh Singh) pleaded that a prior civil suit (decree dated July 3, 1972) had adjudicated and declared the plaintiffs owners of the suit land and that no appeal had been filed, rendering that decree final and binding on the Gram Panchayat.
On that basis, the writ petitioner contended that an application under Section 7 of the Act by the Gram Panchayat for ejectment was not competent in the face of the binding civil decree, and that the authorities could not ignore such a decree merely by relying on the amended Act (Act No. 19 of 1976).

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 1 Land LR 385	Upheld administrative and appellate authorities' concurrent finding that an ex parte civil decree was collusive and therefore could be treated as not binding for purposes of the Act.	The Full Bench observed that the Baldev Singh decision, which sustained ignoring an ex parte decree found to be collusive by authorities, runs contrary in effect to later decisions (Bajinder/Gurnam). The Court considered but did not follow Baldev Singh in preference to Bajinder/Gurnam.
Bajinder Singh v. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Guhla, 1983 Pun LJ 116	Held that retrospective substitution (in Haryana) that abrogated civil court jurisdiction from 1961 onwards was unconstitutional; consequently, amendments could not validly override decrees passed by civil courts.	The Full Bench treated Bajinder Singh as authoritative on the principle that amendments cannot nullify decrees previously and validly passed by civil courts. The Bench followed this view and relied upon it to hold that decrees final before the amending Act remain binding.
Gurnam (Gurnara) Singh v. Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab, 1984 Pun LJ 580	Held that decrees obtained by landowners from civil courts which had become final before enforcement of the amending Act No. 19 of 1976 could not be ignored by authorities under the Act; followed the reasoning in Bajinder Singh.	The Full Bench relied on Gurnam Singh as correctly following Bajinder Singh; the single Judge below had relied upon Gurnam Singh to quash the administrative orders. The Full Bench accepted Gurnam Singh's approach and applied it to the present facts.
The Karnal Co-operative Farmers Society Ltd. Pehowa v. Gram Panchayat, Pehowa, 1976 Pun LJ 237	Involved section 13-A (introduced in 1974); held that subsection (3) of section 13-A conferring power on the Assistant Collector to set aside civil decrees was arbitrary and unguided and was declared ultra vires.	The Full Bench cited this case when discussing the 1974 amendment and its invalid subsection, using it to support the proposition that administrative authorities could not be given unguided power to set aside civil decrees; this precedent was used to emphasize that decrees should be set aside only by competent civil courts.
Civil Writ Petition No. 217 of 1985 (reported as 1986 Pun LJ 404)	Decision referenced as the single-judge judgment (November 1, 1985) that was quashed by the administrative orders and formed part of the matters consolidated before the Full Bench.	The L.P.A. against that judgment was directed to be heard with Civil Writ Petition No. 1870 of 1986. The Full Bench considered the judgment as part of the procedural history and treated the earlier decision as subject to the same principles discussed from Bajinder and Gurnam.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Full Bench proceeded by examining the apparent conflict between Division Bench decisions. It identified three strands of authority:

Baldev Singh: where administrative authorities and the appellate authority made concurrent factual findings that an ex parte decree was collusive and thus treated the decree as not binding for purposes of the Act.
Bajinder Singh: a Division Bench judgment that held retrospective abrogation of civil court jurisdiction (via a fictionally substituted provision with retrospective effect) was unconstitutional; thus, amendments purporting to override decrees validly passed by civil courts could not be sustained.
Gurnam Singh: a Division Bench decision that followed Bajinder Singh and held that decrees which had become final before enforcement of the amending Act (Punjab Act No. 19 of 1976) could not be ignored by authorities under the Act.

The Court observed that provisions introduced in Punjab (section 13-B by Act No. 19 of 1976) and in Haryana (section 13-D by Haryana Act No. II of 1981) are in pari materia, both stating that the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary including any decree or order of any Court. Despite that language, the Full Bench accepted the reasoning in Bajinder and Gurnam that such amending provisions cannot be read so as to override decrees validly and finally passed by competent civil courts prior to the amendment.

The Bench distinguished the reasoning in Baldev Singh on the basis that Baldev Singh involved concurrent factual findings that a decree was collusive. However, the Full Bench concluded that even if administrative authorities find a decree collusive, the proper course is that such decrees should be set aside by a competent civil court on established grounds (fraud, collusion etc.). The Court recalled that an earlier amendment (1974) introducing section 13-A (and subsection (3)) had been held to confer arbitrary and unguided powers on the Assistant Collector and that subsection (3) had been declared ultra vires in Karnal Co-operative Farmers Society Ltd. v. Gram Panchayat, Pehowa. That decision supported the view that administrative authorities should not be vested with uncontrolled power to set aside civil decrees.

Applying these principles to the facts, the Court found that the decrees in favour of the landowners had been passed by competent civil courts prior to the passage of the amending Act No. 19 of 1976 and had become final. Therefore, the authorities under the Act could not ignore those decrees; the orders of the Joint Director and the Collector were quashed on that basis.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling:

L.P.A. No. 13 of 1986 is DISMISSED; Civil Writ Petition No. 1870 of 1986 is ALLOWED and the orders of the Joint Director, Panchayat (exercising the powers of the Commissioner) dated October 19, 1984, and that of the Collector are QUASHED (with no order as to costs).

Implications:

Direct effect on the parties: the administrative orders ejecting the respondent were quashed because the respondent relied on decrees passed by competent civil courts in his favour prior to the amending Act; the Gram Panchayat's appeal (LPA No. 13/1986) failed.
Legal consequence reiterated by the Bench: decrees obtained from civil courts which had become final before the enforcement of the amending legislation (Punjab Act No. 19 of 1976) cannot be ignored by authorities under the Village Common Lands Act; authorities do not have an unfettered power to set aside such decrees on administrative proceedings alone.
Remedy for challenged decrees: parties remain at liberty to have civil decrees set aside on grounds of collusion, fraud, or similar grounds by a competent civil court; the administrative forum under the Act cannot supplant that civil remedy.

The Full Bench resolved the apparent conflict in earlier Division Bench decisions by following the reasoning in Bajinder Singh and Gurnam Singh rather than the approach in Baldev Singh, and applied those principles to dismiss the L.P.A. and to allow the writ petition.

Order accordingly.

Show full summary ...

Gram Panchayat Village Bathoi Kalan v. Jagar Ram

V. Gupta, C. J.

1. Civil Writ Petition No. 1870 of 1986, when came up for motion hearing, the same was admitted to the Full Bench with the following order.

Counsel for the respondents cites Division Bench decisions in Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab, ( 1983) 1 Land LR 385 and Gurnara Singh v. Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab, 1984 Pun LJ 580 which have taken a view contrary to each other on the same point.

Later on when L.P.A. No. 13 of 1986, came up for final hearing, this fact was brought to the notice of the Bench and consequently, the said L.P.A. which was against the judgment in Civil Writ Petn. No. 217 of 1985, which was decided on November 1, 1985 (now reported in 1986 Pun LJ 404) was also ordered to be heard and decided by a Full Bench along with the said writ petition.

2. The facts giving rise to the said L.P.A. were that the Gram Panchayat of Village Bathoi Kalan, Tehsil and District Patiala, filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, (hereinafter called the Act), for ejectment of Labh Singh, respondent, from the land measuring 296 kanals 6 marlas, situated in village Bathoi Kalan, Tehsil and District Patiala. That application was allowed and Labh Singh respondent, was ordered to be ejected from the land, in dispute. Appeal filed by Labh Singh, respondent, did not succeed and was dismissed. Aggrieved against the same, Labh Singh, respondent, filed Civil Writ Petition No. 217 of 1985 Inter alia pleading that he and other right-holders had filed a suit for declaration against the Gram Panchayat that they were the owners in possession of the land, in dispute. The Gram Panchayat was impleaded as a defendant. It contested the suit. The suit was decreed on July 3, 1972, by the subordinate Judge, Second Class, Patiala and it was declared that the plaintiffs were Ihe owners of the suit land along with other proprietors of the village. No appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court was filed and thus the said judgment and decree which were inter partes were binding on the Panchayat. In the face of this decree, another application under Section 7 of the Act by the Gram Panchayat for the ejectment of the writ petitiner on the ground that he was in unauthorised occupation of the shamilat deh was not competent. This plea found favour with the learned single Judge who did not accept the contention of the Gram Panchayat that in view of the amendment of the principal act, by act no. 19 of 1976, the decree passed by the Civil Court had to be ignored by the authorities dealing with the applications under section 7 of the Act. In reaching this conclusion, the learned single Judge relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Gurnam Singh v. Joint Director, Panchayats. Punjab, 1984 Punjab LJ 580, wherein it was held that the decrees passed by the Civil Courts prior to the enforcement of the Punjab Act No. 19 of 1976 amending the principal Act, cannot be ignored by the authorities exercising the jurisdiction under the Act. The learned single Judge distinguished the decision of another Division Bench of this Court in Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 1 Land LR 385, observing that it had not been mentioned therein as to whether the decree of the civil court had been passed before the enactment and enforcement of the Punjab act no. 19 of 1976. The orders of the Collector and the Joint Director, Panchayats, exercising the powers of the Commissioner were thus quashed. Dissatisfied with the same, the Gram Panchayat, had filed this letters patent appeal. The main question to be decided by this Full Bench is, as to whether the judgment in Baldev Singh's case (supra), runs contrary to the decision rendered in Gurnam Singh's case (supra), or not.

3. Baldev Singh's case (1983 (1) Land LR 385) (supra) was decided a year earlier to the case reported as Bajinder Singh v. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade Guhla, 1983 Pun LJ 116, and was disposed of at the stage of motion hearing. No argument was raised on behalf of the writ petitioner therein that section 138 of the Act, as amended, could not set at naught the decrees passed by the civil Courts prior to the amendment of the act by act no. 19 of 1976 (passed on April 15,1976). Therein categorical and concurrent findings were given that the ex parte decree passed in favour of the landowners and against the Gram Panchayat was a collusive one. On the basis of that finding, the Bench observed;-

"It would be manifest from the above that the law itself authorises the overriding of any decree or order of the court. Herein a concurrent finding of fact has been arrived at that the ex parte decree sought to he relied upon was a collusive one. We, therefore, see not the least ground for interference in the concurrent orders of the authorities below."

Later on, it was Bajinder Singh's case (supra), in which the vires of section 13 of the Act, as substituted by Haryana Act No. 2 of 1981, were challenged. In that case, it was held by the Division Bench that the retrospective abrogation of jurisdiction of Civil Courts validly exercised by them from 1961 onwards, by section 4 of the Act, Haryana Amendment Act 2 of 1981 fictionally substituting section 13 with effect from May 4, 1961, and thereby giving rctrospectivity from that date clearly amounted to trenching upon the judicial power by legislature. Consequently, the relevant part of the aforesaid section fictionally substituting section 13 with effect from the 4th day of May, 1961, and thereby giving retrospectivity thereto from the said date, was held to be unconstitutional and struck down. Following the said judgment, another Division Bench of this Court in Gurnam Singh's case ( 1984 Pun LJ 580) (supra), came to the conclusion that the decrees obtained by the landowners from the civil Courts which had become final either because no appeal was filed against the same or the appeals filed had been disposed of and decrees had been sustained whereby they became the owners of the disputed land before the enforcement of act no. 19 of 1976, could not be ignored and the amending Act will not have any effect thereon. The relevant observations made by the Bench are as under:--

"The matter is not res integra and on principle, is covered in favour of the petitioners by a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Bajinder Singh v. Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Guhla, 1983 Pun LJ 116. We entirely concur in the view that this Court had taken in Bajinder Singh's (supra)"

. Thus, both for the State of Haryana and the State of Punjab, the view taken by this Court, was that the amendment made in the Haryana Act, by Act No. 11 of 1981 and in the Punjab Act, by 1991 P. &H./11 G-38 VI act no. 19 of 1976, whereby it was provided that the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, or any agreement, inslrument, custom or usage or any decree or order, of Court or other authority, will not override the decrees passed by the competent civil Courts between the parties. Here section 13-B of the Punjab Act, as introduced by Act No. 19 of 1976, may be reproduced which reads as under:

"The-provision of this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law, or any agreement, instrument, custom or usage, or any decree or order of any Court or other authority."

The equivalent provision as applicable in the State of Haryana, introduced by Haryana Act No. II of 1981, was Section 13-D, which provides as under:

"The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, agreement, instrument, custom or usage, decree or order of any Court."

Reading both the sections together, as introduced in both the States of Punjab and Haryana, it is quite evident that they are in pari materia with each other. That being so, in Gurnam Singh's case (supra), the Division Bench rightly followed the earlier Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Bajinder Singh's case (supra). The correctness of the said two judgments was not challenged before this Bench.

4. The argument raised on behalf of the appellant Gram Panchayat was that the Assistant Collector, while deciding an application under section 11 of the Punjab Act, as amended, could go into the decree of the Civil Court and if the same was found to be collusive, it could be ignored. In support of this proposition, the observations made in Baldev Singh's case (1983 (1) Land LR 385) (supra), were pressed into service. Since in that case both the District Development and panchayat Officer as well as the appellate authority had come to the clear, categoric and cocurrent finding that the ex parte decree was a collusive one, it was argued on behalf of the Gram Panchayat that in the present case as well the decree of the civil Court had been found to be collusive and, therefore, was rightly ignored.

5. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the proposition, we find that in a way the judgment of the Division Bench in Baldev Singh's case (1983 (1) Land LR 385) (supra) runs contrary to the judgment given subsequent thereto in Bajinder Singh's case (1983 Pun LJ 116) and followed in Gurnam Singh's case (1984 Pun LJ 580) (supra).

6. At this stage, it may be noticed that prior to the Haryana Amendment Act No. II of 1981, the Act was also amended in the year 1974, whereby section 13-A of the Act was introduced, which was to the following effect:

"Certain decrees to be set aside and fresh trial of cases.

(1) Where a decree has been obtained from a civil Court by any person against any panchayat in respect of any land or other immovable property on the ground of its being excluded from shamilat deh under clause (g) of Section 2 or on any of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (3) of Section 4, and the copies of the relevant entries of the revenue records had not been produced in support of the averments made in the plaint, the concerned Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Social Education and Panchayat Officer or any other officer authorised by the State Government or any inhabitant of the village, wherein the land or other immovable property is situate, may, within a period of two years from the date of coming into force of the Punjab Village Common L-ands (Regulation) Haryana Amendment Act, 1974 make an application for setting aside the decree to the Assistant Collector of the first grade having jurisdiction in the village wherein the land or other immovable property is situate.

(2) On receipt of the application, the Assistant Collector of the first grade shall summon the. record of the suit from the Civil Court concerned and also serve a notice, in the manner prescribed, on the decree-holder;

(3) After the record of the suit has been received and the service of the notice has been effected on the decree-holder, the Assistant Collector of the first grade shall examine the record and hear the decree-holder in order to satisfy himself as to whether the copies of the relevant entries of the revenue records in support of the averments made in the plaint had been produced during the trial of the suit. If he is satisfied that the copies of the said entries had not been so produced, he shall set aside the decree."

This provision came up for consideration in The Karnal Co-operative Farhers Society Ltd. Pehowa v. Gram Panchayat, Pehowa, 1976 Pun LJ 237, wherein it was held that the legislature had conferred arbitrary and unguided powers on the Assistant Collector to set aside the decree of the Civil Court. Consequently sub-section (3) of section 13-A, was declared ultra vires.

7. Though there was no such provision in the Act as applicable to the State of Punjab, but it is evident that the decree passed by the competent civil Courts between the parties could not be ignored by the authorities under the Act, prior to the amendment of the act by punjab act no. 19 of 1976. However, it may be made clear that the parties will always be at liberty to get those decrees set aside on the grounds of collusion, fraud etc. or otherwise, by a competent Court. Unless the said decrees passed by the Civil Courts are held to be collusive or obtained by fraud, by a competent civil Court, the same could not be ignored by the authorities under the Act in view of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in Bajinder Singh's case (1983 Pun LJ 116) (supra), the correctness of which was not challenged before us.

8. Thus following the law as laid down in Bajinder Singh's case (supra), L.P.A. No, 13 of 1986 stands dismissed as the decrees therein have been passed by the Civil Courts in favour of the landowners comprising the land, in dispute, prior to the passing of the amending act no. 19 of 1976 whereas Civil Writ Petition No. 1870 of 1986 is allowed and the orders of the Joint Director, Panchayat, exercising the powers of the Commissioner, dated October, 19, 1984, copy Annexure P. ] and that of the Collector, are hereby quashed with no order as to costs.

9. Order accordingly.

Gram Panchayat Village Bathoi Kalan v. Jagar Ram

Full Bench Opinion Summary (V. Gupta, C.J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant (Gram Panchayat) — Arguments

Respondent (Labh Singh / writ petitioner) — Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Gram Panchayat Village Bathoi Kalan v. Jagar Ram

Comments

We use cookies to improve your experience