Angad Singh vs Shiv Ram and Others

Amar Dutt, J.—This revision petition seeks to challenge the order dated 31.7.1986 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rupnagar, upholding the order passed by the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Kharar, on 15.6.1985.

The petitioner had approached the Court asserting that he was owner in possession of the suit property whereon he had planted Neem and Kikar trees and had been tethering his cattle. The defendants had dug a kutcha Nali in their land which adjoins the disputed plot and were threatening to pass dirty water of the houses through the plot in dispute. The petitioner also apprehended that the Gram Panchayat wanted to pave the street marked LMNO in the site plan and since all efforts to persuade the defendants to desist from their ways had failed, the petitioner was forced to file the suit for injunction.

After issuance of notice, respondents had put in appearance and asserted that the site in dispute was a street and a chowk which was being used by all the villagers from common purposes. They denied that trees had been planted by the petitioner on the land in dispute. It was submitted that the land in dispute belongs to the Gram Panchayat and was being used for the benefit of the village community and, therefore, the Civil Court had not jurisdiction as the suit was barred u/s 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands, Regulation Act, 1961 (for short the ''Act'') as the site in dispute was Sham-iat deh. In the replication, the petitioners had reiterated their stand. The Courts below had gone into the question of maintainability of the suit in view of the provisions of Section 13 of the Act and had upheld the objections and directed the return of the plaint.

I have heard Shri Malkiat Singh, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri G.S. Punia, Advocate for the respondents and have carefully considered the respective submissions made by them.

The finding returned by the Courts below that the present litigation between the parties centres around the claim of the petitioner that the land in dispute is owned by him while the respondents one of which is Gram Panchayat of Village Naya Shehar have submitted that the property in dispute is Shamlat Deh and is being used as a Chowk for the benefit of the village community. In view of this, the Courts below had rightly come to the conclusion that Section 13 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether the land in dispute was shamlat or not. The Courts below have relied upon Bhim Singh v. Gram Panchayat of village Kharkhari 1984(1) AILLR 211, Gram Sabha Balad Kalan and Anr. v. Sarwan Singh and Ors. 1981 P.L.J. 311 and Bhagu and Others Vs. Ram Sarup and Another, for rejecting the plea of the petitioner that the bar contained in Section 13 of the Act is not attracted to the facts of the case.

For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is consequently dismissed.