Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 684 (PNJ)

Suraj Bhan v. Gram Panchayat

2001-07-13

V.K.JHANJI

body2001
JUDGMENT V.K. Jhanji, J. - This Civil revision is directed against the judgment dated 10.2.1999 passed by District Judge, Narnaul vide which he has set aside the judgment and decree dated 24.2.1972 passed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Mohindergarh and ordered the return of plaint to the plaintiffs for presentation to a Court of competent jurisdiction in view of the provisions of Section 13 of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. In brief, the facts are that on 23.5.1968. plaintiffs-petitioners on their behalf and also on behalf of the proprietors of the village Jhagroli Tehsil and District Mohindergarh filed Civil Suit No. 103 of 23.5.1968 for possession of agricultural land measuring 2421 Kanals 14 Marlas situated in village Jhagroli on the ground that they being the proprietors of the village are the owners of the said land and Gram Panchayat has wrongly got attested the mutation in its favour on May 3, 1966. Plaintiffs also pleaded that the Gram Panchayat has taken forcible possession of the land in dispute and, therefore, they being the proprietors are entitled to possession of land. 3. Upon notice, suit was contested by the Gram Panchayat inter-alia on the ground that the land in dispute is Shamilat Deh and vests in Panchayat. Sub Judge 1st Class, Mohindergarh, after recording the evidence of the parties, passed a decree for possession in favour of the plaintiffs on 24.2.1972. Against the said judgment and decree, Gram Panchayat filed an appeal in the Court of District Judge, Narnaul on March 13, 1972. The said appeal was entrusted to Senior Subordinate Judge with enhanced appellate powers for decision. During the pendency of the appeal, an amendment came in 1961 Act and Section 13-B was inserted by Section of the Amendment Act. In view of Section 13-B, Senior Subordinate Judge with enhanced appellate powers, on finding that the dispute in question can be decided only by the Collector under the Act, transferred the appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat to the Collector, Mohindergarh at Narnaul vide order dated 22.4.1975. 4. Being aggrieved of order dated 22.4.1975 transferring the appeal to the Collector, plaintiffs filed Civil Writ Petition No. 2390 of 1975. In the writ (sic). 5. Mr. 4. Being aggrieved of order dated 22.4.1975 transferring the appeal to the Collector, plaintiffs filed Civil Writ Petition No. 2390 of 1975. In the writ (sic). 5. Mr. M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that (sic) this Court while deciding Civil Writ Petition No. 2398 of 1975 filed by the petitioners has taken a view that the appeal cannot be transferred by Appellate Court, the plaint could not have been ordered to be returned to the plaintiffs for presentation to a Court of competent jurisdiction. His precise submission is that the appellate Court is bound to decide the appeal on merits. He further contended that the Appellate Court committed an error in setting aside the finding on issues No. 4 to 8 by observing that Civil Court is not competent to record a finding on the question raised in the issues because of lack of jurisdiction. 6. In answer to this submission, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Gram Panchayat contended that the appeal before the District Judge filed by the Gram Panchayat being in continuation of the suit, the Appellate Court was well within its jurisdiction to go into the question in regard to jurisdiction of Civil Court to decide as to whether the property in dispute is Shamilat Deh or not. He contended that Section 13 of the Act specifically bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to determine whether the land in dispute is Shamilat Deh or not. He contended that the Division Bench in CWP No. 2390 of 1975 had only set aside the order of Senior Subordinate judge with enhanced appellate powers whereby appeal was ordered to be transferred to the Collector for decision but the Division Bench nowhere held that the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal cannot go into the question of want of jurisdiction of Civil Court to decide the question in regard to land being Shamilat Deh or not. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find no merit in this revision petition. 8. In the suit, the controversy raised by the parties was regarding the nature of land. The case of plaintiffs was that they being proprietors are owners of land whereas case of Gram Panchayat was that the property is Shamilat Deh and vests in Panchayat. 8. In the suit, the controversy raised by the parties was regarding the nature of land. The case of plaintiffs was that they being proprietors are owners of land whereas case of Gram Panchayat was that the property is Shamilat Deh and vests in Panchayat. The question, before the Court for decision was whether the land was Shamilat Deh or not. Section 13 as originally enacted in 1961 provided that no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction over any matter arising out of operations of the Act. In Haryana, the provision was substituted by Act No. 34 of 1974 and by this amendment, Section 13 was amended and Sections 13-A and 13-B were also added. Section 13 as amended, bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain or adjudicate upon any question as to whether any land or other immovable property or interest in such land or other immovable property vests or does not vest in Panchayat. The provision of Section 13 as it stood before the amendment, did not bar the jurisdiction of Civil Court, so far as decision of question of title was concerned. However, after the Amendment Act No. 34 of 1974, Section 13 specifically bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain or adjudicate upon any such question. In this case, the amendment had not come when the trial court had decided the suit but the amended Act had come into force during the period appeal was pending. The word adjudicate appearing in Section 13 of the Act came up or consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in Gram Sabha Balad Kalan and others v. Sarwan Singh and others, 1981 PLJ 311. The Division Bench came to the conclusion that on the enactment of Section 13, Civil Court has been debarred from not only entertaining suit but also from passing any judgment on any question whether the land is or is not Shamilat Deh. It also held that Civil Court ceases to have jurisdiction to pass any judgment in a pending suit whether at the stage of trial or appellate stage. Appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat being in continuation of the suit, in my view, the first Appellate Court was well within its jurisdiction to decide whether Civil Court was competent to record a finding in regard to land being Shamilat Deh or not. 9. Appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat being in continuation of the suit, in my view, the first Appellate Court was well within its jurisdiction to decide whether Civil Court was competent to record a finding in regard to land being Shamilat Deh or not. 9. It may also be stated at this stage that Haryana Act No. 9 of 1999 in its application to the State of Haryana, has further been amended and Sections 13-A and 13-AA have been inserted. They read as under. "13-A. Adjudication - (1) If any person or in case of a Panchayat, either the Panchayat or its Gram Sachiv, the concerned Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Social Education and Panchayat Officer or any other officer duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf, claimed right, title or interest in any land or other immovable property, vested or deemed to have been vested in the Panchayat under this Act, may file a suit for adjudication, whether such land or other immovable property is Shamilat Deh or not and whether any land or other immovable property or any right, title or interest therein vests or does not vest in a Panchayat under this Act, in the Court of Collector, having jurisdiction in the area wherein such land or other immovable property is situated: Provided that no suit shall lie under this section in respect of the land or other immovable property, which is or has been the subject matter of the proceedings under Section 7 of this Act under which the question of title has been raised and decided or under adjudication. (2) The procedure for deciding the suits under sub-section (1) shall be same as laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act 5 of 1908). 13-AA. Appeal and Revision. - (1) Any person, aggrieved by an order passed under sub-section (1) of section 13-A, may within a period of thirty days from the date of such order, prefer an appeal to the Commissioner in such form and manner, as may be prescribed, and the Commissioner may after hearing the appeal, confirm, vary or reverse the order as he deems fit. (2) The Financial Commissioner may, suo motu or on an application made to him by any person aggrieved by an order passed under sub-section (1), call for the record of any proceedings pending before, or order passed by the Commissioner for the purpose of satisfying proceedings or order and pass such order in relation thereto as he may deem fit : Provided that no order adversely affecting a person shall be passed unless he has been afforded an opportunity of being heard. 10. On the enactment of Section 13-A, a forum has been provided to get the matter adjudicated in regard to land or other immovable property being Shamilat Deh or not. 11. Faced with this situation, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs contended that the suit which the plaintiffs may file under Section 13-A of the Act in the Court of Collector, may have become time barred. In answer to this, counsel appearing on behalf of the Gram Panchayat contended that Section 13-A has been inserted by Haryana Act No. 9 of 1999 and it has received the consent of the Governor, Haryana on March 10, 1999 and as such suit, if any filed, will not be barred by time as a forum has been provided to get the matter adjudicated only by Haryana Act No. 9 of 1999. He also contended that the Gram Panchayat shall not set up bar of limitation as defence to the suit, if any, filed by the plaintiffs. 12. In view of the fair concession extended by counsel for the Gram Panchayat, apprehension of counsel for the plaintiffs that suit, if any, now filed would be barred by time, is without foundation. 13. In view of the above discussion, this civil revision is dismissed with no order as to costs. Revision dismissed.