JUDGMENT : ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. 1. Plaintiffs have filed this regular second appeal against concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below. 2. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration claiming that they should be declared owner in possession of land to their respective shares out of total land measuring 508 kanals and 4 marlas situated in the village Dhawana, Tehsil and District Rewari. It was asserted that as per jamabandi for the year 2004-05, “Shamilat Patti Puran” is recorded as owner. In the cultivation column, the entry is “Makbuooja Malkan”. 3. Learned trial Court as well as first appellate Court after appreciating the evidence available on the file, dismissed the suit on the ground that some part of the land is being used for common purposes as it is under a “Pond”. Learned Courts below have further held that jurisdiction of the civil Court to try such cases is barred under Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (as applicable to Haryana) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Section 13 of the Act is reproduced as under:- 13. Bar of Jurisdiction.-- No civil court shall have jurisdiction-- (a) to entertain or adjuciate 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.” Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that plaintiffs are not claiming that the land vest in the Gram Panchayat. Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that Gram Panchayat became party later on. However, the plaintiffs had not claimed any relief against them. Counsel for the appellants has further submitted that other co-owners or members of the “Shamilat Patti” are enjoying possession, whereas the suit filed by the appellants has been dismissed. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants. However, the plaintiffs had not claimed any relief against them. Counsel for the appellants has further submitted that other co-owners or members of the “Shamilat Patti” are enjoying possession, whereas the suit filed by the appellants has been dismissed. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants. A reading of Section 13 of the Act would show that the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred to adjudicate upon the question whether any land or immovable property is or is not “Shamilat Deh”. As per definition of “Shamilat Deh” given under Section 2(g) of the Act, the land shown as “Shamilat Patti” used as per revenue record for the benefit of the village community is included in the definition of “Shamilat Deh”. As per definition of “Shamilat Deh” given under Section 2(g) of the Act, the land shown as “Shamilat Patti” used as per revenue record for the benefit of the village community is included in the definition of “Shamilat Deh”. Section 2(g) of the Act is extracted as under:- Section 2(g) “Shamilat deh” includes-- (1) Lands described in the revenue records as Shamilat deh or Charand excluding abadi deh” (2) shamilat tikkas; (3) lands described in the revenue records as shamilat, Tarafs, Pattis, Pannas and Tholas and used according to revenue records for the benefit of the village community or a part thereof or for common purposes of the village; (4) lands used or reserved for the benefit of the village community including streets, lanes, playgrounds, school, drinking wells, or ponds situated within the sabha area as defined in clause (mmm) of section 3 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952, excluding lands reserved for the common purposes of a village under section 18 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmetnation) Act, 1948 (East Punjab Act 50 of 1948), the management and control whereof vests in the State Government under Section 23-A of the aforesaid Act;] (4a) vacant land situate in abadi deh or gorah deh not owned by any person;] (5) lands in any village described as banjar qadim and used for common purposes of the village, according to revenue records; [.......] but does not include land which- (i) becomes or has become shamilat deh due to river action or has been reserved as shamilat in villages subject to river action except shamilat deh entered as pasture, pond or playground in the revenue records; (ii) has been allotted on quasi-permanent basis to a displaced person; (ii-a) was shamilat deh, but , has been allotted to any person by the Rehabilitation Department of the State Government, after the commencement of this Act, but on or before the 9th day of July, 1985;] (iii) has been partitioned and brought under cultivation by individual landholders before the 26th January,1950.” (iv) having been acquired before the 26th January, 1950, by a person by purchase or in exchange for proprietary land from a co-sharer in the shamilat deh and is so recorded in the jamabandi or is supported by a valid deed; (v) is described in the revenue records as Shamilat, Taraf, Pattis, Pannas, and Thola and not used; according to revenue records for the benefit of the village community or a part thereof or for common purposes of the village. (vi) lies outside the abadi deh and was being used as gitwar, bara, manure pit, house or for cottage industry, immediately before the commencement of this Act]; (vii) [.......] (viii) was Shamilat Deh, was assessed to land revenue and has been in the individual cultivating possession of co-sharers not being in excess of their respective shares in such shamilat deh on or before the 26th January, 1950; or [(ix) is being used as a place of worship or for purposes, subservient thereto; (6) lands reserved for the common purposes of a village under section 18 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (East Punjab Act 50 of 1948), the management and control whereof vests in the State Government under Section 23-A of the aforesaid Act. Explanation:- Lands entered in the column of ownership of record of rights as “Jumla Malkan Wa Digar HaqdaranArazi Hassab Rasad”, “Jumla Malkan” or Mushtarka Malkan” shall be shamilat deh within the meaning of this section;] 4. The argument of learned counsel for the appellants is that the plaintiffs had only claimed their ownership and therefore, the jurisdiction of a civil court is not barred, cannot be accepted. 5. The jurisdiction of a civil court is barred as per Section 13 of the Act to decide the question, whether the land is “Shamilat Deh” or not. If the plaintiffs are claiming themselves to be owners of the suit land, their claim is that the land is not included in the definition of “Shamilat Deh”. Hence, the jurisdiction of civil Court to entertain and decide such suit would be barred. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that only part of the land is under the “johar(pond)”, which is a common purpose and, therefore, with respect to remaining land, the jurisdiction of civil court is not barred. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants. 8. The definition of “Shamilat Deh” given in Section 2(g) of the Act would show that if a part of the “Shamilat Patti” land is being used for common purposes, then it is included in the definition of “Shamilat Deh”. 9. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants. 8. The definition of “Shamilat Deh” given in Section 2(g) of the Act would show that if a part of the “Shamilat Patti” land is being used for common purposes, then it is included in the definition of “Shamilat Deh”. 9. Further since the civil Court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such dispute, therefore, it would be appropriate for the plaintiffs to file a suit under Section 13-A of the Act, wherein the legislature has provided for adjudicatory forum to decide such disputes. 10. For the reasons recorded above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below. 11. The regular second appeal is dismissed.