Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 322 (PNJ)

Hazara Singh v. Gram Panchayat

2000-03-23

IQBAL SINGH

body2000
Judgment 1. Plaintiff-appellant Hazara Singh and Harbans Singh filed the present suit for declaration to the effect that the proprietary body of Village Ghel is owner of the land in dispute described in the heading of the plaint and that the respondent Gram Panchayat has no concern with the same; that the land in suit is Mustarka Malkan which was carved out during the consolidation of holding in the village by the Consolidation Authorities by imposing a cut upon the holding of the proprietary body of the village i.e. Khewatdars of Village Ghel, whose names are mentioned in the Jamabandi for the year 1958-59 (Misel Hakiat); that the suit land is being cultivated by some of the Khewatdars of Village Ghel since the day of consolidation of holdings; that the suit land is Bachat land of Village Ghel and that the Khewatdars of the village including the plaintiff-appellant are entitled to get the same partitioned from the revenue authorities but the respondent-Gram Panchayat is claiming ownership of the suit land illegally and forcibly. 2. The suit was contested by the respondent-Gram Panchayat. In the written statement filed by it, preliminary objections that the suit is barred under Sec. 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation Act, 1961; that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit; that neither the plaintiffs nor any other Khewatdars of the village are in possession of the suit land and that the suit for mere declaration is not mainainable, were taken. It was further pleaded tht the land in dispute is Shamlat as defined under Sec. 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and the respondent-Gram Panchayat is owner of the same. The respondent-Gram Panchayat has been giving the land in dispute on lease on every year for the last 35 or 36 years and the income of the lease money is being used for the welfare and common purposes of the village. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues besides that of relief:- "1. Whether the proprietary body of village Ghel is owner of the land in dispute?OPP.2.Whether the Court has got no jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD.3.Whether the suit is not maintainable in this form? OPD." 4. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues besides that of relief:- "1. Whether the proprietary body of village Ghel is owner of the land in dispute?OPP.2.Whether the Court has got no jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD.3.Whether the suit is not maintainable in this form? OPD." 4. The trial Court decided issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiffs by holding that the proprietary body village Ghel is owner of the disputed land. However, issue Nos. 2 and 3 were decided in favour of the defendants. In view of its findings on issue Nos. 2 and 3 the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. 5. On appeal by plaintiff-appellant Hazara Singh, the lower appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 6. Still dissatisfied, the plaintiff-appellant has preferred this Regular Second Appeal to challenge the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the records of the case. 8. The question involved in this case is whether the land in dispute is Shamlat Deh or it is vested in the Gram Panchayat. This question cannot be gone into by the Civil Court as has been laid-down in Sec. 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 , which, for facility of reference, is reproduced hereunder:- "13. Bar of Jurisdiction in Civil Court.-No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction -(a) to entertain or adjudicate upon any question, whether any property or any right to or interest in any property is or is not shamilat deh vested or deemed to have been vested in a Panchayat under this Act; or (b) to question the legality of any action taken by the Commisioner 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." 9. In view of the above-quoted provisions of Sec. 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 , the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, in the present case, is clearly barred, and it has rightly been so held by both the Courts below. In view of the above-quoted provisions of Sec. 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 , the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, in the present case, is clearly barred, and it has rightly been so held by both the Courts below. In Ram Singh V/s. Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan, 1986 PLJ 636 : (AIR 1986 SC 2197) the Hon ble Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs cannot by drawing their plaint cleverly by not claiming a declaration that the land in question was not Shamlat deh confer jurisdiction on the Civil Court when by virtue of Sec. 13 of the Act the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to try such suits had been taken away. In Ram Singhs case (supra), as in the present case, the Gram Panchayat had expressly claimed that the land in question belonged to it and the Apex Court held that this question has to be decided by the Collector only under Sec. 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 . In view of this decision of the Apex Court in Ram Singhs case (supra), the case cited by the learned counsel for the appellant i.e. Laxmi Narain V/s. Debi, 1984 PLJ 198 wherein a learned single Judge of this Court held that in view of the omission of Clause (4a) from Sec. 2(g) by Haryana Act No. 2 of 1981 the Abadi deh land jointly owned by the proprietors does not come within the definition of Shamilat deh contained in Sec. 2(g) and, therefore, the act would not be applicable, is not of any help to the appellant. In Laxmi Narains case (supra) the lower appellate Court had concluded that in view of Clause (4a) of Sec. 2(g) of the Act, the land in dispute was Shamilat deh and, therefore, any question that it was not Shamilat deh could not be raised in proceedings under Sec. 13-B of the Act and not before the Civil Court. As such, when the very basis of the judgments of the Courts below that the land is Shamilat deh in view of Clause (4a) had evaporated after omission of Clause (4a) from Sec. 2(g) by Haryana Act No. 2 of 1981, the learned Single Judge of this Court in Laxmi Narains case (supra) held that the Act would not be applicable. But, the same is not the case here. But, the same is not the case here. In the present case, as has been stated above, the question involved is whether the land in dispute in Shamilat deh or it is vested in the Gram Panchayat. This question, as discussed above, cannot be gone into by the Civil Court. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed.