P&H HC Upholds Panchayat’s Eviction Of Occupant From Two Plots, As Earlier Ejectment Cases Didn’t Cover Them

The Gram Panchayat filed an ejectment application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, seeking possession of several parcels of land in village Dodwa.

The Assistant Collector partly allowed the application, and the Collector dismissed Azmu’s appeal.

In revision, the Commissioner upheld eviction only from Khasra Nos. 78//16/18 and 28/5, holding that res judicata did not apply because those parcels had not been included in earlier proceedings.

Azmu challenged the Commissioner’s order, arguing that earlier proceedings and a prior High Court judgment barred the ejectment application.

The Panchayat’s ownership and Azmu’s lack of a lawful right to possess the land were not contested before the High Court.

Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as applicable in Haryana, provides the statutory basis for proceedings to eject unauthorised occupants from village common land.

The court applied the principle of res judicata, observing that it requires the subject matter of the dispute to be the same; earlier decisions concerning different land do not bar proceedings concerning land that was not part of those earlier applications.

The prior High Court judgment relied upon by the petitioner concerned successive proceedings involving the same land, person, and period, and did not establish a bar where the land in the later proceeding was different.

The court noted that the authorities had found, on the jamabandi and khasra girdawri, that the Gram Panchayat owned the disputed land and that Azmu had shown no tenancy, lease, or other legal basis for his possession; those findings were not challenged as perverse or contrary to law.

The two khasra parcels at issue had not formed part of the earlier applications, so the requisite identity of subject matter for res judicata was absent.

The earlier High Court judgment did not assist Azmu because it addressed successive proceedings concerning the same land, person, and period.

Although the lower orders had not been separately challenged, the court declined to dismiss the petition on that technical ground, noting that the Commissioner had partly allowed the revision and that the petitioner challenged the portion adverse to him.

It upheld the Commissioner’s order and dismissed the writ petition as meritless.