Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 451 (PNJ)

Gram Panchayat Ronija v. Hari Singh

2008-02-19

RAJIVE BHALLA

body2008
Judgment Rajive Bhalla, J. 1. This order shall dispose of C.R. Nos. 3290, 3630, 3631, 3632 and 3633 of 2007, as they involve common question of law. 2. The respondents, herein filed a suit for declaration, asserting that they were proprietors/biswedars of the Village and consequently owners in possession of the suit land measuring 232 Kanals situated within the revenue estate of Village Ronija, Tehsil Palwal, Distt. Faridabad. It was also asserted that the suit land was never reserved for common purposes and consequently, the land did not vest in the Gram Panchayat. The respondents also sought a declaration that mutation No. 179 dated 9.4.1977 and 494 dated26.5.1992 whereby the land was mutated in the name of the Gram Panchayat was illegal, null and void. 3. The petitioner herein, namely, the Gram Panchayat filed a written statement and raised a specific objection that jurisdiction of the civil court to adjudicate the dispute raised by the plaintiff is barred in view of Section 13 and 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 , (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner also filed an application dated 10.2.2005, praying that as the suit was not maintainable, a preliminary issue be framed to decide the question of jurisdiction. Vide order dated 6.4.2007, the learned trial Court dismissed the application by holding that as question of jurisdiction is a mixed question of law and fact, no preliminary issue can be framed. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that Order 14 Rule 2 Sub-Rule 2(a) specifically provides mat where issues both of law and fact arise in the same suit and the Court is of the opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to the jurisdiction of the Court or to a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force. It is submitted that as the petitioners prayer for framing of a preliminary issue falls within Clause (a) and (b), the learned trial Court committed an error of jurisdiction in dismissing the application. 5. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the respondents are owner in possession of the suit land. It is submitted that as the petitioners prayer for framing of a preliminary issue falls within Clause (a) and (b), the learned trial Court committed an error of jurisdiction in dismissing the application. 5. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the respondents are owner in possession of the suit land. The revenue authorities, sanctioned a mutation in favour of the Gram Panchayat, without considering the rights of the respondents and in ignorance of the fact that the land is Jumla Malkan and Digar Haqdaran Hasab Rasab Kabza Arazi, as recorded in the consolidation proceedings. It is asserted that as the respondents title is clear and does not admit to any ambiguity, no question of title has to be determined under the Act. In Civil Revision No. 3890 of 2007, it is asserted that the Gram Panchayat, had filed a petition for ejectment under Section 7 of the Act. The said petition was dismissed by holding that the respondents were in possession as a co-sharer and, therefore, could not be ejected. It is, therefore, asserted that as mixed questions of law and fact arise for adjudication, the learned trial Court, rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. It is not denied that the jamabandi reflects the Gram Panchayat as owner of the suit land. The assertion by the respondents to the contrary, namely, that they are co-sharers/proprietors of the village and that the land was classified as Jumla Malkan or Digar Hadaran Hasab Rasab Kabza Arazi, during consolidation is an emphatic assertion on their part that the suit land does not vest in the Gram Panchayat but vests in them as co-sharer/proprietors in possession. Sections 13 and I3-A of the Act reads as follows: 13. Bar of Jurisdiction: No civil Court shall have jurisdiction. Sections 13 and I3-A of the Act reads as follows: 13. Bar of Jurisdiction: No civil Court shall have jurisdiction. (a) to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether - (i) any land or other immovable property is or is not shamlat deh; (ii) 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 a Panchayat under this Act; (b) in respect of any matter which any revenue Court, officer or authority is empowered by or under this Act to determine; or (c) 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. 13-A. Adjudication.- (1) Any person or in the 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 authorized by the State Government in this behalf, claiming 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 shamlat 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 the Collector, having jurisdiction in the area wherein such land or other immovable property is situated: Provided that no such 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). 7. A perusal of Section 13-A leaves no manner of doubt that a person asserting that land is or is not Shamlat Deh or that any right, title or interest therein vests or does not vest in a Gram Panchayat is required to file a petition under Section 13-A of the Act. 7. A perusal of Section 13-A leaves no manner of doubt that a person asserting that land is or is not Shamlat Deh or that any right, title or interest therein vests or does not vest in a Gram Panchayat is required to file a petition under Section 13-A of the Act. Section 13 of the Act enacts a statutory bar that bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any such dispute. Order 14 Rule 2 Sub-Rule 2(a) and (b) of the C.P.C. requires a civil court to decide issues pertaining to their jurisdiction, as also to a bar to their jurisdiction enacted by any law for the time being in force. Order 14 Rule 2 Sub-Rule 2(a) and (b) of the C.P.C. reads as follows: Order XIV - Rule (2) Court to pronounce judgment on all issues- (1) Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of Sub-rule (2) pronounce judgment on all issues. (2) Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to - (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue has been determined and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue. 8. 8. A conjoint reading of Sections 13 and 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and Order 14 Rule 2 Sub-Rule 2(a) and (b) of the C.P.C, leads to a singular conclusion, namely, that where a party raises an objection and pleads a lack of jurisdiction to entertain a suit pursuant to the statutory bar enacted by Section 13 of the Act, a Civil Court would have to decide this objection by resorting to the provisions of Order 14 Rule 2 Sub-Rule 2(a) and (b) of the C.P.C. The statutory bar, enacted by Section 13 of the Act would necessarily fall within the parameters of a consideration envisaged by Order 14 Rule 2 Sub-Rule 2(a) and (b) of the C.P.C. Order 14 Rule 2 Sub-Rule 2(a) and (b) do not admit to any ambiguity and in fact confer jurisdiction upon a Court, to determine questions as to its jurisdiction as also to the maintainability of a suit by treating such an issue as preliminary. It also enables a Court, to decide issues as to its jurisdiction at the very outset. Postponing adjudication of such issues to the final adjudication of a suit, would lead to unnecessary delays and hardship. Order 14 Rule 2 Sub-Rule 2(a) ensures expeditious disposal of issues, particularly, relating to jurisdiction and, therefore, should circumstances so permitting, be resorted to. The learned trial Court, therefore, erred in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for treating the issue with respect to jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. 9. In this view of the matter, the revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the trial Court, to consider the petitioners application afresh and pass appropriate orders in respect thereof, within two months of the parties putting in appearance before the trial Court on 27.3.2008.