Judgment K.Kannan, J. 1. The order in challenge at the instance of the Gram Panchayat is the decision of the District Collector passed on 31.05.1988 rejecting the appeal filed by the panchayat against the order of the Assistant Collector which was rendered earlier on 30.09.1987. The Assistant Collector and the Collector were rejecting the contention of the panchayat that the respondents were in possession of the property which was used in common and held that the property is possessed by the respondents having a double storeyed house constructed for the last over 24 or 25 years prior to the order when the order was passed on 30.09.1987. The Assistant Collector had reached the conclusion which was affirmed by the Collector that the disputed property could not have been used as common passage and that the property is really an abadi of the village and never used for public purposes. The Assistant Collector, however, directed a composition fee at Rs.535.05 and directed the respondents to deposit the amount within a period of one week, failing which the eviction would be ordered. This decision of the Assistant Collector was affirmed by the Collector. 2. The panchayat which challenges the orders passed rely on another case alleged to have been filed by the panchayat against the private respondents as well as 5 others in the year 1985 which held that all the persons were required to be evicted. The appeal filed by the private individuals that included the private respondents, was also dismissed. The decision of the Collector was on 04.05.1987. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the panchayat would contend that the earlier decision finding the property to vest with the panchayat and directing eviction of all persons including the private respondents here, had become final and, therefore, at a subsequent hearing, the Collector could not have taken a decision through the impugned order that the property was not used for common purpose of the village. This contention, in my view, is erroneous. If in respect of the very same property and between the same parties, if two decisions have come about and they are inconsistent with each other, our Courts have held that it is the later decision that shall prevail. Although the proceedings before the Collector or the Assistant Collector are not the same as before Civil Courts, in my view, the principle of res judicata would still apply. Although the proceedings before the Collector or the Assistant Collector are not the same as before Civil Courts, in my view, the principle of res judicata would still apply. It has been held by this Court that if there are two decisions between the same parties on the same subject matter, one conflicting with the other, it shall be only the later judgment that would prevail. This view finds expression in Dhani Ram and others v. Raghbir Singh and others, 1965 Current Law Journal (Punjab) 701 and later affirmed in Smt. Shanti v. Smt. Bhullan, 1989 P.L.J. 280. This is also the view of many High Courts in India M. Kunhinama Kurup v. Mayyarath Krishnan Kurup, (A.I.R. 1987 Kerala 13; Mathura Prosad Rajgharia v. State of West Bengal A.I.R. 1973 Calcutta 288; Devaru Vasudevaru v. Raman Pillai Neelkanta Pillai A.I.R. 1963 Kerala 217; and Mst. Sampati v. Ram Karan 1976 Allahabad Law Journal 119) 3. The petitioner, therefore, cannot rely on the earlier decisions made by the Assistant Collector and the Collector in the years 1986 and 1987 to obtain eviction and only the later judgment shall prevail. The petitioner is bound by the same and no interference is called for. The learned counsel also states that the composition fee which had been directed to be paid by the private respondents have not been paid. I am not making any alteration in the order already made, but I am only affirming the decisions rendered in the impugned orders. The petitioner is at liberty to take such action as it is legally possible in respect of the impugned orders if there is any point that obtains in favour of the panchayat. 4. The writ petition is dismissed on the above terms.