GRAM PANCHAYAT OF VILLAGE NAULAKHA versus UJAGAR SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 457 · Decided: 27-09-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

GRAM PANCHAYAT OF VILLAGE NAULAKHA 
A 
v. 
UJAGAR SINGH AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 
[M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, I 908. 
S. I I-Plea of res judicata-Defence against-Application u/s. 7 of 
Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 filed by Gram C 
Panchayat-Respondent relying on an earlier decree for injunction-Plea 
that earlier decree was obtained by collusion-Accepted by Collector as 
also by Development Commissioner, but rejected by High Court relying on 
its earlier Full Bench decision*-Held, it is open to statutory authorities to 
go into collusive nature of suit in proceedings u/s. 7 of the Act-No independent D 
suit as a condition precedent is necessary-High Court's judgment based on 
its earlier Full Bench decision, being contrary to s.44 of Evidence Act, is set 
aside-Matter remitted to High Court for disposal afresh-Punjab Village 
Common land (Regulation) Act, 1961, S. 7-Evidence Act, 1872-S.44. 
Decree-Collusive decree-Defence against plea of res judicata. 
E 
legal Maxim-Fabula non judicium, hoc est in scena non in foro res 
agitur-Applicability of 
Words and Phrases-"Collusion"-explained 
*Gram Panchayat, Village Bathoi Kalan Patiala v. Jagar Ram and 
Ors., AIR (1991) P & H 159, overruled. 
Sajjadanashin Sayed v. Musa Dadabhai Ummer, [2000) 3 SCC 350, 
relied on. 
Boswellv. Coaks, [1894) 6 Rep. 167, referred to. 
Sarkar on Evidence, (13th Ed., reprint) p. 509 and Spencer-Bower and 
Turner on Res Judicata (2nd Ed., 1969), referred to. 
F 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5467 of 2000. H 
457 
458 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.10.98 of the Punjab and Haryana 
High Court in C.W.P. No. 11569of1997. 
R.K. Kapoor, P. Varma, S.K. Srivastava, Sumit Kumar, Anis Ahmed Khan, 
S.D. Sharma, Neeraj Sharma and Balbir Singh Gupta for the appearing parties. 
B 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
This appeal is preferred by the Gram Panchayat against the judgment 
of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 12.10.1998 in CWP No. 11569 
C of 1997. The appellant filed an application under Section 7 of the Village 
Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 and an order was passed in its favour 
by the Collector on 12.7.1988. The Collector found that an earlier decree 
obtained by the respondents against the appellant for injunction on 10.6.1975 
was a decree obtained by the respondents in collusion with the then Sarpanch 
and was not binding on the Panchayat in the present proceedings. On appeal 
D by the respondents before the Development Commissioner, the said judgment 
was affirmed on 13.3.1997 upholding the plea of collusion. The respondents 
then moved the High Court by way of a writ petition and the writ petition was 
allowed by the High Court on 12.10.1998. The learned judges of the High 
Court did not go into the question of collusion or the merits of the case but 
'· 
E felt bound by a decision of a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High 
Court in Gram Panchayat, Village Bathoi Kalan, Patiala v. Jagar Ram and 
Ors., AIR (1991) P&H 159, which judgment was said to have been followed 
by another Division Bench on.28.1.1998. The Full Bench judgment laid down 
that the statutory authorities under the Punjab Village Common Land 
(Regulations) Act, 1961 could not ignore an earlier decree against the 
F Pancha:yat on the ground of its being collusive and fraudulent, unless the 
Panchayat had first filed an independent suit to set aside the said decree or 
sought declaration that the decree was collusive or fraudulent. 
.,,. 
In the present case, learned counsel for the appellant submits that 
G admittedly the earlier suit was filed by the respondents against the Panchayat 
for injunction on 16.5.1975 and that the Sarpanch then conceded the case of 
the respondents and a decree was passed on 10.6.1995 within 24 days of the 
filing of the suit and that the said decree was, in the face of these facts, 
obviously collusive and that it was not necessary to drive the appellant to 
a separate suit to establish that the said decree was collusive. Learned 
H counsel contends that the Full ·Bench in Jagar Ram 's case has laid down a 
GRAM PANCHAYAT OF VILLAGE NAULAKHA v. UJAGAR SINGH 
459 
wrong principle. In order to raise a plea of collusive of an earlier suit, it is not A 
necessary to file _an independent suit and obtain another decree as a condition 
precedent. Counsel s
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.