Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 262 (PNJ)

Nahar Singh v. Gram Panchayat, Atta

2000-03-02

R.L.ANAND

body2000
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. (Oral) - Unsuccessful plaintiff Nahar Singh has filed the present appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.10.1999 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Gurgaon, who dismissed the appeal of the appellant by affirming the judgment and decree dated 18.12.1998 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Nuh, vide which the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. 2. Plaintiff Nahar Singh and others filed the suit in representative capacity alleging that they are owners in possession of the suit land mentioned in para No. 2 of the plaint. Defendant No. 1 Gram Panchayat of village Atta without any notice to the plaintiffs illegally got sanctioned mutation No. 464 dated 14.1.1955 in respect of the suit land on the basis of letter No. 1171 issued by defendants No. 2 and 3. On the basis of said mutation defendant No. 1 filed an ejectment petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act against the plaintiff and the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Nuh vide order dated 12.2.1997 ejected the plaintiffs from the suit land. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff before the Collector was dismissed on 16.6.1997 and the revision preferred before the Commissioner was also dismissed on 6.10.1997. The plaintiff alleged that all the orders passed by the said authorities are illegal, invalid, without jurisdiction and against the mandatory provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act and the entries in the revenue record in favour of defendant No. 2 are also fictitious. It is further alleged that on the basis of said void orders, defendant No. 1 is bent upon to take the possession of the suit land. The plaintiffs have prayed for a decree of injunction to the effect that they are owners in possession of the suit land and that the defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit land and the orders dated 12.2.1997, 16.6.1997 and 6.10.1997 passed by the revenue authorities against the plaintiffs are null and void and without jurisdiction. 3. The notice of the suit was given to the defendants. 3. The notice of the suit was given to the defendants. The suit was contested by defendant No. 1, which took preliminary objections that the suit is not maintainable; that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred; that the plaintiff have no locus standi to file the present suit; that it is beyond limitation and that it is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, the stand of defendant No. 1 was that the plaintiffs are not entitled to file the present suit in the representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. because they are neither the Bishwedars nor have any right, title or interest in the suit land. The proceedings with the revenue Courts were admitted and it was admitted that the possession of the suit land was delivered to the Gram Panchayat vide Rapat No. 341 dated 26.4.1997. The land was further leased out in favour or Rattan Singh by the Gram Panchayat. The mutation entered in favour of defendant No. 1 is correct and the orders passed by the revenue authorities are also in accordance with law. 4. The plaintiffs filed re-joinder to the written statement in which they reiterated the allegations made in the plaint by denying those of the written statement and from the pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the order dated 12.2.1997 passed by A.C. Ist Grade, Nuh and the order dated 16.6.1997 passed by the Commissioner are illegal, without jurisdiction as alleged ? OPP 2. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit, as alleged ? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their own act, conduct, acquiesences and laches as alleged ? OPD 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is time barred as alleged ? OPD 5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties as alleged ? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus-standi for filing the present suit as alleged ? OPD 7. Relief. 5. The parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective cases and on the conclusion of the trial, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiffs filed first appeal before the Court of Addl. OPD 7. Relief. 5. The parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective cases and on the conclusion of the trial, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiffs filed first appeal before the Court of Addl. District Judge, Gurgaon and vide judgment and decree dated 16.10.1999 the appeal of the plaintiffs was also dismissed for the reasons given in paras 13 to 16 of the judgment, as under :- "13. I have considered the above arguments and gone through the lower court file and impugned judgment. These are admitted facts that as per jamabandis for the year 1938-39, 1953-54, 1961-62 and 1990-91 the name of shamlat deh has a brased arazi and that of panchayat deh has been mentioned in the column of ownership. 14. Coming to the findings on issue No. 2 the submission of the counsel for the appellant that civil court has jurisdiction to try the present suit, is without any force as the learned Addl. Civil Judge Sr. Divn. has discussed the law referred by the counsel for the appellant i.e. Roshan Lal v. M.C., Nabha, 1996 P.L.J. 124 and rightly distinguished that the facts of the case law referred by the appellant will not apply to the case in hand and has also dismissed the case law referred by the counsel for the respondents i.e. Mange Ram v. Dev Dutt, 1998(2) R.C.R. 456 that if the land in dispute belongs to Panchayat the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred under the provisions of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act. Perusal of Section 13(c) of the Punjab Village Commons Lands Act shows that jurisdiction has been specifically barred. I reproduce the relevant portion as under :- "No civil court shall have jurisdiction to question the legality of any action taken or matter decided by any revenue court, officer or authority empowered to do so under this Act." 15. Now coming to evidence adduced, document Ex. P6 is the written statement filed by Nahar Singh claiming cultivation of the suit land through Central Govt. alleging that panchayat has no concern with the suit land whereas the panchayat has been contesting the proceedings before various authorities claiming to be owner of the suit property and got evicted Nahar Singh from the suit land. P6 is the written statement filed by Nahar Singh claiming cultivation of the suit land through Central Govt. alleging that panchayat has no concern with the suit land whereas the panchayat has been contesting the proceedings before various authorities claiming to be owner of the suit property and got evicted Nahar Singh from the suit land. Perusal of file shows that there is a letter from Joint Secretary to Govt. Haryana Rehabilitation Department, in which it has been mentioned that ownership of the land in question vests in Gram Panchayat of village Atta and the Custodian department cannot dispose of the land in question in view of the pronouncement Gram Panchayat, Jamalpur v. Malvinder Singh, AIR 1985 Supreme Court 1394 and has also mentioned this fact that land in question vests in Gram Panchayat of village Atta as the Custodian department has nothing to do with the land in question. 16. This argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is without any force that civil court should have decided all the issues as provision of Order 20 Rule 5 CPC is very clear that the court shall state its finding or decision with the reasons therefor, upon each separate issue, unless the finding upon any one or more of the issues is sufficient for the decision of the suit." 6. I have heard Mr. R.M. Singh, Advocate on behalf of the appellant and with his assistance have gone through the record of this case. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Courts below have wrongly come to the conclusion that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under the provisions of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The counsel further submitted that the land in dispute was the property of the proprietors of the village. The plaintiff-appellant was also one of the proprietors and such a property could never vest in respondents No. 2 and 3 and as such it could not be allotted to respondent No. 1. He further submitted that when the ownership of the property in question vests with the appellant and other proprietary body of the village, the orders passed by the revenue authorities ordering the ejectment of the plaintiffs from the suit land are illegal and this aspect of the case can be questioned and agitated in the Civil Court. He further submitted that when the ownership of the property in question vests with the appellant and other proprietary body of the village, the orders passed by the revenue authorities ordering the ejectment of the plaintiffs from the suit land are illegal and this aspect of the case can be questioned and agitated in the Civil Court. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relies upon Gurbax Singh v. The Financial Commissioner and another, 1991 P.L.J. 192 and submitted that the Special Tribunal or Authority if acts ultra vires or illegally, then the Civil Court by virtue of Section 9 C.P.C. has power to interfere and set matter right. The learned counsel also relies upon Basheshar Nath and others v. The Gram Panchayat, Mustafabad, 1996 PLJ 228,, Chatar Singh and another v. The Collector, Hissar and others, 1995 PLJ 376 and Gram Panchayat, village Bhedpura v. The Additional Director, Consolidation and others, 1997(1) PLJ 535. 8. I have gone through the citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant and in my opinion these are not applicable to the facts in hand. The plaintiffs can succeed only if they have been able to show that the land in question vests in the proprietary body of the village and that Nahar Singh is one of the proprietors. If this is not proved prima facie, then the plaintiffs cannot say that the orders passed by the revenue authorities in pursuance of thee powers granted under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as applicable to the State of Haryana, are without jurisdiction. As per jamabandis for the years 1938-39, 1953-54, 1961-62 and 1990-91 the name of Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Arazi and that of Panchayat Deh has been mentioned in the column of ownership. As per jamabandis for the years 1938-39, 1953-54, 1961-62 and 1990-91 the name of Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Arazi and that of Panchayat Deh has been mentioned in the column of ownership. If this is the factual position, then as per Section 7 of the Act the Collector shall, on an application made to him by a panchayat, or by an officer, duly authorised in this behalf by the State Government by a general or special order, after making such enquiry, as he may think fit and in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed put the panchayat in possession of the land or other immovable property in the shamilat deh of that village which vests or is deemed to have been vested in it under this Act and for so doing the Collector may exercise the power of a revenue court in relation to the execution of a decree. As per Section 7(2), an appeal is maintainable before the Commissioner. The Gram Panchayat filed an application under Section 7 before the Collector and that application was allowed by holding that the land vests in the Gram Panchayat and the possession of the plaintiffs is illegal. The plaintiffs could agitate before the Collector that the land does not vest or deemed to have been vested in the Gram Panchayat as shamilat deh or otherwise and that Nahar Singh plaintiff was one of its proprietors. The plea of the plaintiffs has failed before the Collector as well as the Commissioner and also before the reviewing authority. In such a situation we have to see whether it is still open to the plaintiffs to file a civil suit in the civil Court or not. According to Section 12 of the Act every order made by the Collector or the Commissioner shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court by way of appeal or revision or in any original suit, application or execution proceedings, save, as otherwise, expressly provided in the Act. According to Section 13, no Civil Court shall have the jurisdiction - (a)...........(b) to question the legality of any action taken by the Commissioner or the Collector or the Panchayat under this Act, or (c) in respect of any matter which the Commissioner or the Collector is empowered by or under this Act to determine. According to Section 13, no Civil Court shall have the jurisdiction - (a)...........(b) to question the legality of any action taken by the Commissioner or the Collector or the Panchayat under this Act, or (c) in respect of any matter which the Commissioner or the Collector is empowered by or under this Act to determine. Thus, the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the present matter. The case set up by the plaintiffs before the revenue authorities was that they were cultivating the suit land through the Central Government. It has been observed by the first Appellate Court that there was a letter from Joint Secretary to Govt. Haryana, Rehabilitation Department in which it had been mentioned that the ownership of the land in question vests in the Gram Panchayat of village Atta and the department has nothing to do with the land in question. In such a situation when the plaintiffs have not been able to trace their proprietorship or ownership with respect to the suit land, how they can come to the civil court after losing before the Collector and Commissioner. 9. Faced with this difficulty, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when his client instituted the suit in the civil court, at that time Section 13-A, as applicable to the State of Haryana, was not in existence and, therefore, the plaintiffs could file a suit for getting an adjudication. This argument is not acceptable to this Court. Section 13-A gives right to the person as well as to the Panchayat to seek adjudication, when such person or Panchayat claims right, title or interest in any land or immovable property vested or deemed to have been vested in the Panchayat under this Act, by filing a suit whether such land or other immovable property is shamilat deh or not or whether any land or other immovable property or any right, title or interest therein vests or does not vest in panchayat. In this case, the remedy has been adopted by the Gram Panchayat. The plaintiffs have taken all the possible defences. If any order is passed against a party under Section 13-A, again the remedy is provided under Section 13-B, which has also been adopted. In this case, the remedy has been adopted by the Gram Panchayat. The plaintiffs have taken all the possible defences. If any order is passed against a party under Section 13-A, again the remedy is provided under Section 13-B, which has also been adopted. When a special forum has been provided for the availment of the remedy and when that forum has already been adopted with no fruitful result, the matter cannot be adjudicated again in the civil Court unless it is established that the order was without jurisdiction. It is not the case in hand that the order was without jurisdiction. Resultantly, both the Courts have rightly held that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. There is no merit in this appeal. The same is hereby dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.