JUDGMENT Hemant Gupta, J. - Defendant Gram Panchayat is in revision petition aggrieved against the order passed by the Courts below granting ad interim injunction and restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff except in due course of law. 2. The plaintiff-Society has filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated 8.12.1999 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Ambala, in petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as applicable to Haryana (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") is illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, unjust, without jurisdiction and null and void and does not affect the rights of the plaintiff in the land in dispute. The plaintiff-Society has alleged that the defendant Gram Panchayats have earlier passed three independent resolutions on 22.4.1994 to lease out shamlat land falling within their respective domains total measuring 368 kanals 4 marlas. The State Government vide its order dated 9.3.1995, however, accorded sanction to these Panchayats for gifting the suit land instead of leasing out the same to the plaintiff-Society. Such sanction was disputed by the Gram Panchayats by virtue of writ petition before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.9.1997 accepted the writ petition and set aside the sanction order dated 9.3.1995 of gifting of suit land in favour of the plaintiff-Society. However, it was clarified that the acceptance of writ petition would not mean that the Gram Panchayat cannot pass any resolution and that the Government cannot be moved in the matter once again. 3. The plaintiff-Society has pleaded that the defendant Gram Panchayats on 21.2.1997 had passed resolutions of leasing of land in favour of the plaintiff-Society. However, the State Government vide its order dated 28.11.1997 set aside its order giving the land by way of gift. Thereafter, all the three Gram Panchayats passed a resolution for ejectment of the plaintiff- Society from the suit land. Notice of such ejectment petition was given to the plaintiff-Society. The plaintiff-Society has filed its written statement to the effect that the possession of the land was given by the Panchayats to the plaintiff-Society after the Government had sanctioned the gift. It was pleaded that the plaintiff-Society is under the Ministry of Agriculture and, therefore, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (I.C.A.R.) and others should be impleaded as parties. The plaintiff-Society has filed its written statement to the effect that the possession of the land was given by the Panchayats to the plaintiff-Society after the Government had sanctioned the gift. It was pleaded that the plaintiff-Society is under the Ministry of Agriculture and, therefore, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (I.C.A.R.) and others should be impleaded as parties. It was alleged that the plaintiff-Society is not in unauthorised possession and, therefore, it cannot be ejected by way of this application. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff-Society has been getting grant from the Indian Council of Agricultural Research and the Government and it has spent considerable amount on tube-well, fish pond etc., and other development works. After opportunity was given to both the parties to lead evidence, an order of ejectment was passed by the Assistant Collector under Section 7 of the Act on 8.12.1999. 4. The order of ejectment passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade was disputed in appeal. The appeal was dismissed by the learned District Collector, Ambala on 27.4.2000. In the meantime, after the decision by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, the plaintiff-Society filed the present suit for declaration challenging the order of eviction passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. 5. It is stand of the defendant Gram Panchayat that after the gift was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court, there is no resolution of the Gram Panchayats for leasing out or gifting the shamlat land to the plaintiff- Society. Instead there is a resolution for the eviction of the plaintiff- Society. Since the gift in favour of the plaintiff-Society has been set aside, the possession of the plaintiff-Society under the gift is unauthorised and, therefore, the plaintiff-Society is liable to the evicted. However, the learned trial Court granted ad interim injunction on the ground that the action of the Gram Panchayats in delivery of the suit land through agreement dated 14.3.1995 and the resolution dated 20.2.1997 was not hit by the order of the High Court and the possession of the plaintiff-Society is authorised possession. The appeal filed by the Gram Panchayats against the said order has been dismissed wherein the plea that the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred was also raised. The appeal filed by the Gram Panchayats against the said order has been dismissed wherein the plea that the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred was also raised. The learned Appellate Court with cryptic order dismissed the appeal by only observing that the plaintiff-Society entered into possession of the land in dispute on the basis of the permission given by the Gram Panchayats and it had made huge investments, therefore, the plaintiff- Society has acquired some civil rights which needed determination. It also held that Assistant Collector Ist Grade has no jurisdiction to determine such right in proceedings under Section 7 of the Act. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the orders passed by the Courts below are patently illegal, arbitrary, cryptic and without jurisdiction particularly when the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred under Section 13 of the Act. 7. Admittedly, the land in possession of the plaintiff-Society is a shamlat land. At one stage i.e. in the year 1994, the Gram Panchayats resolved to lease out the suit land to the plaintiff-Society at the rate of Rs. 300/- per acre. However, the State Government while considering the approval to the resolutions of the Gram Panchayats ordered gift of the land to the plaintiff- Society subject to certain conditions. Such action of the State Government was challenged before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.5.1997 has set aside the approval of the State Government. The operative part of the order reads as under :- "The bare perusal of the resolution of the Gram Panchayat Annexure P-1 would make it clear that the afore-mentioned terms and conditions of gift deed were not incorporated in the resolution. The terms and conditions of the lease are entirely different than the terms and conditions of gift deed. The gift in common parlance pre-supposes the transfer of moveable and immoveable property which is a voluntary act of the donor and the same is without consideration. The lease on the other hand pre-supposes the transfer of immoveable property on payment of lease money. The Gram Panchayat never intended to gift the property in favour of respondent No. 2. Since we are setting aside the sanction of the Government on the afore-mentioned short ground, we are not recording any finding on other points. The lease on the other hand pre-supposes the transfer of immoveable property on payment of lease money. The Gram Panchayat never intended to gift the property in favour of respondent No. 2. Since we are setting aside the sanction of the Government on the afore-mentioned short ground, we are not recording any finding on other points. With these observations, the writ petitions are allowed. Annexure P-2 is set aside. The acceptance of the writ petitions, however, would not mean that the Gram Panchayat cannot pass another resolution or that the Government cannot be moved into matter once again. If any action is permissible under law, the Gram Panchayat or the Government will be entitled to take the same." 8. The plaintiff-Society has relied upon resolution dated 20.2.1997 passed during the pendency of the writ petition to the effect that the Gram Panchayat has again resolved to lease out the land to the plaintiff-Society. However, there is no order of approval to such resolution. Instead, there is mention to the order dated 28.11.1997 passed by the State Government setting aside the order regarding giving of land by way of gift. In the absence of approval of resolution passed on 20.2.1997, shamlat land could not be leased out or gifted in favour of the plaintiff-Society. Thereafter, all the three Gram Panchayats passed a resolution for evicting the plaintiff-Society from the shamlat land. The above circumstances would clearly show that though the plaintiff-Society entered into possession on the basis of approval of gift of land in favour of the plaintiff-Society but such gift was set aside by a Division Bench of this court in which the plaintiff-Society was a party. The possession of the plaintiff-Society over the suit land is unauthorised. The legality of the possession can be restored if the Gram Panchayats pass a resolution of sale, gift or lease and such resolution is approved by the State Government. In the absence of any resolution to the said effect after the decision of the writ petition and approval by the State Government, the possession of the plaintiff-Society over the suit land which was gifted under a void order is unauthorised. Therefore, the order of ejectment passed against the plaintiff- Society cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. 9. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-Society has argued that the order of eviction has been passed against the plaintiff on political considerations. Therefore, the order of ejectment passed against the plaintiff- Society cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. 9. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-Society has argued that the order of eviction has been passed against the plaintiff on political considerations. However, no such pleading has been raised before the authorities under the Act. If the plaintiff-Society wants to allege mala fide in exercise of the powers conferred on the authority, the plaintiff-Society has to lay foundation first before the authority. Having failed to do so, it is not open to the plaintiff-Society to impugn the order passed by the authority on the ground of mala fide exercise of jurisdiction. 10. Section 13 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain or adjudicate upon any question pertaining to any land or other immovable property or any right, title or interest in such land or other immovable property vests or does not vest in the Gram Panchayat or to question the legality of any action taken or matter decided by any revenue court, officer or authority under the Act. Section 7 of the Act empowers the Assistant Collector to pass the order of eviction after making summary enquiry either suo moto or on the application made to him by a Panchayat or an inhabitant of the village or the Block Development and Panchayat Officer. In the present case, the Gram Panchayats by way of resolution have resolved for eviction of the plaintiff-Society. After such resolution, the Panchayats have initiated proceedings under Section 7 of the Act. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade has passed the order of eviction. Such order has been confirmed in appeal as well. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the civil Court to go into the legality or validity of the order passed by the revenue authorities constituted under the Act is barred under Section 13 of the Act. 11. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-Society has relied upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court reported as M.P. Electricity Board, Jabalpur v. Vijaya Timber Co., 1997(1) Supreme Court Cases 68 to contend that the exclusion of jurisdiction of civil Court cannot be readily inferred on the ground of availability of remedy and forum under a Special Act. However, the said judgment is clearly distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case. However, the said judgment is clearly distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case. One of the principles of conferring jurisdiction on the civil Court is if the provisions of the particular Act are not complied with or the statutory Tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. It was held to the following effect in the aforesaid judgment :- "It is well settled that the exclusion of jurisdiction of civil Court cannot be readily inferred and the normal rule is that civil Courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature except those of which cognizance by them is either expressly or impliedly excluded. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Dhulabhai v. State of M.P., AIR 1969 Supreme Court 78, had laid down several propositions in this regard. The final proposition is apposite for the facts of this case. It reads as under :- "(1) Where the statute gives a finality to the orders of the special tribunals the civil Courts jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the civil Courts would normally do in a suit. Such provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure." However, there is no grievance of the plaintiff-Society that the provisions of the Act have not been complied with or the tribunal constituted under the Act has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. Therefore, keeping in view the principles laid down in the judgment referred to above by learned counsel for the respondents, I do not find that the civil Court will have the jurisdiction merely on the allegation that the proceedings initiated against the plaintiff-Society are actuated by mala fide. The orders passed by the authorities are subject to the power of judicial review of this Court but on the basis of mere allegation of mala fide, the plaintiff-Society cannot approach the civil Court. The jurisdiction of the civil Court is expressly barred under the statute. Therefore, the orders passed by the Courts below suffer from patent illegality and material irregularity causing manifest injustice to the petitioner. The jurisdiction of the civil Court is expressly barred under the statute. Therefore, the orders passed by the Courts below suffer from patent illegality and material irregularity causing manifest injustice to the petitioner. In view of the above, revision petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. Revision allowed.