Azmu vs The Commissioner,Rohtak And Ors

Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court

CWP-141-2001 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(201)
CWP-141-2001 (O&M)
Date of Decision: - 12.11.2026
Azmu (D) through his LRs
....Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak and others
....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DIVYA SHARMA
Present:- Mr. Vikram Singh Punia, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Pradeep Prakash Chahar, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. Present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated
21.10.2000, passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, vide
which the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from the land
comprised in Khasra No.78//16/18(0-2) and 28/5(6-16).
2. Undisputed facts of the present case are that the
respondent No.4-gram panchayat had filed an application for ejectment
under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation)
Act, 1961 (now known as the Haryana Village Common Lands
(Regulation) Act, 1961, hereinafter to be referred as 'Act of 1961') on
02.02.1994 with respect to land comprised in Khewat No.598/578
NARESH KUMAR
2026.11.14 12:29
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-141-2001 (O&M) -2-
Mn, Khatauni Number 717, Khasra Number/Mustail and Killa
No.15//24(7-12) 25(6-16), 16//21/2(4-0) 22/3(1-7), 78//16/18(0-2), 27/1

(8-0) and 28/5(6-16) situated in village Dodwa. It was the case of the
gram panchayat that they were the owner of the said land and in support
of the said plea had produced on record a copy of the jamabandi for the
years 1989-90 as well as the copy of the khasra girdawri.
st
3. The Assistant Collector 1 Grade, Sonepat, vide order dated
12.01.1996 partly allowed the said application of the gram panchayat
with respect to Killa Nos.16//21/2(4-0) 22/3(1-7), 78//16/18(0-2), 27/1

(8-0) and 28/5(6-16). With respect to other land comprised in Killa
No.15//24-25, it was observed that the eviction from the same is barred by
the principle of res judicata . The petitioner was additionally directed to
pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- per acre from 02.02.1992 till the handing
over of the possession. The said order has been annexed as Annexure P-4.
st
A perusal of the said order would show that the Assistant Collector, 1
Grade, Sonepat had taken into consideration the jamabandi for the years
1989-90 as well as the copy of the khasra girdawri which were produced
as A-2 and A-3 and had concluded that the land from which the eviction
had been ordered was owned by the gram pancahyat and the petitioner
had not been able to show that either he was a tenant or had any legal
right to possess the said land and thus, it was found that the petitioner was
in unauthorized possession of the same.
4. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order and the
Collector, vide order dated 11.09.1996 (Annexure P-5) dismissed the said
NARESH KUMAR
2026.11.14 12:29
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-141-2001 (O&M) -3-
appeal. A perusal of the said order would show that the Collector also
took into consideration the jamabandi of the years 1989-90 and observed
that as per the same, the land in dispute was owned by the gram panchayat
and no evidence has been produced by the petitioner to show that he had
any right on the said land. It was further stated that the petitioner had not
been able to show that the principles of res judicata would apply with
respect to the land regarding which the eviction order had been passed.
5. Petitioner thereafter filed a revision petition before the
Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak and the Commissioner, Rohtak
Division, Rohtak vide order dated 21.10.2000 (Annexure P-6) upheld the
eviction order only with respect to Khasra No.78//16/18(0-2) and 28/5
(6-16) . The eviction order with respect to Khasra Nos.16/21/2(4-0), 22/3
(1-7) and 27/1(8-0) was set aside solely on the plea of res judicata . The
Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak had observed that in the earlier
three applications the khasra numbers, other than Khasra No.78//16/18(0-
2) and 28/5(6-16), were already the subject matter of dispute and since the
orders in the said three applications had been finally passed in favour of
the petitioner with respect to the said khasra number (suit land), thus, the
principle of res judicata wouly apply with respect to the said land but
would not apply to Khasra No.78//16/18(0-2) and 28/5(6-16) as the said
khasra numbers were never a part of the earlier applications. It is the said
order of the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak which has been
challenged in the present petition.
NARESH KUMAR
2026.11.14 12:29
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-141-2001 (O&M) -4-
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a
perusal of Annexures P-1 and P-2 as well as the judgment of the High
Court dated 09.05.1983 (Annexure P-3) would show that the principle of
res judicata would apply in the present case even with respect to the land,
which was not a part of the ealier applications. It is, thus, submitted that
the impugned order dated 21.10.2000 (Annexure P-6) passed by the
Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak be set aside.
7. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that
even in case the order dated 21.10.2000 (Annexure P-6) passed by the
Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, is set aside, the order passed by
st
the Assistant Collector 1 Grade as well as by the Collector had not been
specifically challenged and thus, the same deserve to be upheld. It is
further stated that since the khasra numbers from which the eviction had
been ordered by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak were never
a part of the earlier applications, thus, the principle of res judicata would
not apply qua the said land. It is submitted that the subject matter, being
different, the said principle of res judicata would not apply.
st
8. The concurrent findings of the Assistant Collector 1 Grade
as well as of the Collector and of the Commissioner, Rohtak Division,
Rohtak to the effect that the gram panchayat was the owner of the land in
question has not been contested before us. Moreover, all the three
authorities had relied upon the jamabandi for the years 1989-90 as well as
the khasra girdawri, which were duly produced on record, to show that
NARESH KUMAR
2026.11.14 12:29
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-141-2001 (O&M) -5-
the gram panchayat was the owner of the land in question. The said
finding has neither been shown to be perverse nor against law. Even the
concurrent finding of the authorities to the effect that the petitioner could
not show that his possession was legal or there was any rent deed, lease
deed in his favour or that he had any right in the property in question,
could not be disputed before this Court. The sole plea which has been
agitated is the ground of res judicata . Even regarding the said ground, it
could not be disputed before this Court that Khasra No.78//16/18(0-2)
and 28/5(6-16) regarding which the eviction order had been upheld by the
Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak were not a part of the earlier
applications filed. No law has been cited before this Court to show that in
case, in a subsequent application the eviction is sought from land which
was never a part of the earlier applications, then, the decision on the
earlier applications would operate as res judicata . It is a matter of settled
principle of law that for the purpose of res judicata , the subject matter of
the dispute should be the same. In the present case, since it is undispute d
that Khasra No.78//16/18(0-2) and 28/5(6-16) were not a part of the
earlier applications, thus, the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak
had rightly passed the eviction order with respect to the said khasra
numbers.
9. Further a perusal of Annexure P-1, which is the order passed
in the first application, would show that only Rectangle No.15//24-25 was
the subject matter in the said case (there was a typographical error in line
4 at page 15, inasmuch as, Rect. No.16 has been wrongly mentioned
NARESH KUMAR
2026.11.14 12:29
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-141-2001 (O&M) -6-
instead of Rect. No.15 which fact has been fairly admitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as by the learned counsel for the
respondents-State). Even a perusal of Annexure P-2, which is the order
passed in the second application, would show that the subject matter in

the said case is not Khasra No.78//16/18(0-2) and 28/5(6-16). Further the
judgment of the High Court dated 09.05.1993 passed in CWP-7617-1976
(Annexure P-3) would in fact not support the case of the petitioner,
inasmuch as, it was specifically observed in the said judgment that with
respect to the same land, successive proceedings cannot be taken before
the Assistant Collector against the same person and for the same period of
time. The land in question regarding which the eviction order has been
passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, not being the
subject matter of the earlier applications, the principle of res judicata
would not apply. Moreover, after having found that it is the gram
panchayat who is owner of the property and the petitioner has no right in
the same, the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak had rightly passed
the order of eviction, which deserves to be upheld.
10. Before concluding, it would be relevant to mention that the
st
Assistant Collector 1 Grade as well as the Collector in the orders dated
12.01.1996 (Annexure P-4) and dated 11.09.1996 (Annexure P-5)
respectively had evicted the petitioner from additional khasra numbers
which were a part of the ealier applications, which error has been rectified
by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak. Although, the petitioner
NARESH KUMAR
2026.11.14 12:29
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-141-2001 (O&M) -7-
has not specifically challenged the order dated 12.01.1996 (Annexure
P-4) as well as the order dated 11.09.1996 (Annexure P-5) and has only
challenged the order dated 21.10.2000 (Annexure P-6) of the
Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, but keeping in view the facts
and circumstances of the present case, to non-suit the petitioner on the
said technical ground would be doing injustice to the petitioner.
Moreover, at any rate, the revision petition filed by the petitioner before
the Commissioner was partly allowed and to the extent the same was
dismissed the petitioner has challenged the order of the Commissioner. It
would also be relevant to mention that the respondents-State as well as
the respondent-gram panchayat had not challenged the said order of the
Commissioner.
11. Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances, the
impugned order dated 21.10.2000 (Annexure P-6) passed by the
Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak is in accordance with law and
deserves to be upheld and the present writ petition, being meritless,
deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
(DIVYA SHARMA)
JUDGE
November 12, 2026
naresh.k
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes
Whether reportable? Yes
NARESH KUMAR
2026.11.14 12:29
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document