JUDGMENT
T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.
1. This writ petition is filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the orders of the Collector, Patiala, dated February 8, 1980, be confirmed by the Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab, vide her order dated February 23, 1981.
2. Gram Panchayat of village Mandhaur, District Patiala, filed an application before the Collector under Section 11 read with Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for decision of the title of the Gram Panchayat and for recovery of possession and also for ejectment of Surjan Singh from the land comprised in Khasra No. 51/116, 4//1(0-4), 19(1-10),, 20(6-18), 21(8-0), 22(7-8) measuring 24 Kanals. The petitioner contested the said application on the ground that the land was comprised by him in an auction held in the year 1944 by the Executive Council of Nabha State and he purchased it for a sum of Rs. 9,250/- and his name was mutated in the revenue records, and, therefore, he became the owner of the land. When he was dispossessed by the Gram Panchayat, he filed a suit in the Court of Sub Judge First Class, Bassi, on February 16, 1969, and that suit was decreed on June 18, 1970. In pursuance of the decree, he had been put in possession of the property on September 5, 1972, and he continued to be in possession of the property thereafter and that the land cannot be described as Shamlat Deh within the definition of Section 2(g) of the Act. The Collector by his order dated February 8, 1980, directed the petitioner to handover the possession of the property. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab, by way of appeal which was also unsuccessful. The petitioners, therefore, approached this Court for quashing the orders of respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Civil Court decree dated June 18, 1970, has become final and so his possession has been established by virtue of purchase made by him in the year 1944 in an auction held by the Executive council and his name had been mutated in the revenue records of the year 1944 itself. As he has been in possession of the property prior to 1950, the land ceased to be a Shamlat Deh. He further contended that the decree of the Civil Court is binding on the Gram Panchayat and there are no grounds to set aside the decree. He also relied on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Gram Panchayat v. Jogar Ram and Ors., (1991-1)99 P.L.R. 260 (F.B.). It is on the other hand contended by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that though the petitioner purchased the property in the year 1944 he was not put in possession of the property and that Gram Panchayat had been in possession of the property till the possession was given to the petitioner under the orders of Sub Judge in the year 1972. He further argued that a Civil Court has no jurisdiction by virtue of Section 13 of the Act, by which jurisdiction of the Civil Court was taken away. According to the learned counsel, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 rightly allowed the application of Gram Panchayat for possession of the property under Section 7 of the Act.
4. There is no dispute that the property was sold in public auction under the Orders of the Executive council in the year 1944. Annexure P-1 filed by the petitioner clearly shows that the auction was held and that the petitioner purchased the property in the auction for a sum of Rs. 9250/- and also paid the consideration by depositing the sum in the treasury and mutation was also effected in the name of the petitioner. Thus, it is clear that in the year 1944 itself the petitioner was put in possession of the property. Learned counsel for Gram Panchayat states that mutation does not prove the possession of the petitioner. Entries made in Khasra being entries made in an official record by public officers in discharge of their duties are themselves relevant facts and may be considered by the Courts as evidence of possession though not of title.
5. Gram Panchayat has not filed any document to show that it has been in possession of the property prior to 1944. Annexure P-1 shows that the land was purchased by the petitioner in auction and his name was mutated. So, it should be taken that the petitioner is owner and possessor of the land from 1944 unless contrary is proved by the Gram Panchayat. Under Section 2(g)(iii) of the Act Shamlat Deh does not include the land which has been partitioned and brought under cultivation by individual landholders before the 26th January, 1950, when the property was shown to have been in possession of the petitioner in the year 1944 and that there is nothing on record to show that the Gram Panchayat was even in possession of the property prior to January 26, 1950, the only conclusion one can arrive at is that the property ceased to be Shamlat Deh and it does not include in Shamlat Deh as per the definition contained in Section 2(g)(iii) of the Act. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the land cannot be considered as Shamlat Deh to attract the provisions of Section 7 of the Act.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the decree of the Sub Judge dated June 18, 1970, became final and, therefore, Gram Panchayat cannot eject the petitioner. He placed reliance on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Gram Panchayat v. Jogar Ram and Ors. case (supra) which supports his contention. It has been held therein as follows :-
“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 decree 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 P.L.J. 116 DB, the correctness of which was not challenged before us.”.
Thus, it is clear that the decree passed by the Civil Courts prior to 1976 continue to be binding on the parties unless set aside by the competent Civil Court on the grounds of collusion and fraud. The learned counsel for the Gram Panchayat relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Singh and Ors. v. Gram Panchayat Mohal Kalan and Ors., (1987-1) 91 P.L.R. 224 and contended that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. But a reading of the decision of the Supreme Court in this case makes it clear that the Civil Court decree in that case was passed after the amendment of Sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Act in 1976. After the amendment in 1976, the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to entertain and adjudicate the title and possession and to determine whether the property is or not a Shamlat Deh is taken away. Therefore, the Supreme Court has not held anything which is contrary to the decision of the Full bench of this Court in Jogar Ram’s case. The Supreme Court has not held that the decrees passed prior to the amendment of the Act, 1976, have to be ignored as rendered without jurisdiction. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Singh’s case (supra) cannot be availed of by the Gram Panchayat.
7. In view of my foregoing discussion, I am of the opinion that the orders of the Collector and the Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab, are liable to be quashed. I accordingly allow the writ petition and quash the orders of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 vide Annexure P-7 dated February 8, 1980 and Annexure P-9, dated February 23, 1981. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.