Judgment Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, J. The petitioner-Gram Panchayat of village Jaraut, TehsilDera Bassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, assails the correctness of thejudgment and decree passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge,Mohali. 2.Some facts are required to be noticed. The plaintiffs(respondents herein) filed a suit for grant of decree of permanentinjunction, restraining the Gram Panchayat and its representatives frominterfering in the possession of the plaintiffs from the suit land situatedin the abadi of the village Jaraut, bearing khasra no.594. The GramPanchayat defended the suit with the assertion that, previously, a suitfiled by the brother of plaintiff no.1 and the father of plaintiff no.3regarding the same property was dismissed by the civil court on03.10.2000, while returning a finding that the disputed property actuallyfalls in khasra no.595. Learned trial court also noticed that there arevarious orders passed against the plaintiffs and their family membersunder Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act,1961, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1961 Act’ ) ordering their evictionfrom the land comprised in both khasra no.594 and 595. The trial courtfurther held that in view of Section 13 of the 1961 Act, the jurisdictionof the civil court is barred. 3.However, the learned First Appellate Court has reversed thejudgment and decree passed by the trial court, even after noticing thatthere is a collective order passed by the Collector pertaining to landcomprised in khasra no.594 and 595. 4.Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and withtheir able assistance perused the paper book. 5.Learned counsel representing the plaintiffs (respondents)does not dispute that there is an order of eviction against the plaintiffsand their family members, ordering their eviction, from the landcomprised in khasra no.594 and 595. It is also not disputed that aprevious suit filed by the brother of plaintiff no.1 and the father ofplaintiff no.3, has been dismissed while recording a finding that thedisputed property falls in khasra no. 595. 6.However, learned counsel representing the respondentscontends that before taking possession, the Gram Panchayat is requiredto get the area demarcated. 7. In the considered view of this Court, the civil court has nojurisdiction in the aforesaid matter. Section 13 of the 1961 Act, clearlyprovides that once an order has been passed by the Collector, no civilcourt shall have jurisdiction to question the legality of such action.Section 13 of the 1961 Act is extracted as under:- 13. 7. In the considered view of this Court, the civil court has nojurisdiction in the aforesaid matter. Section 13 of the 1961 Act, clearlyprovides that once an order has been passed by the Collector, no civilcourt shall have jurisdiction to question the legality of such action.Section 13 of the 1961 Act is extracted as under:- 13. Bar of Jurisdiction in Civil Courts:- No civilcourt shall have jurisdiction:- (a) to entertain or adjudicate upon any question,whether any property or any right to or interest in anyproperty is or is not Shamilat deh vested or deemed tohave been vested in a Panchayat under this Act ; or (b) to question the legality of any action taken by theCommissioner or the Collector or the Panchayat,under this Act, or (c) in respect of any matter which the Commissioneror the Collector is empowered by or under this Act to determine]. 8.Furthermore, before granting any injunction, the court isrequired to examine whether the plaintiffs have prima facie case or theyhave any right, title or interest in the property. The plaintiffs have failed to draw the attention of the Court to any such right. The various orders passed under Section 7 of the 1961 Act have become final. In viewthere of, the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court is clearlyunsustainable. Hence, it is set aside and that of the learned trial court is restored. 9.The Regular Second Appeal stands allowed. 10.All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.