Chander Parkash and Another vs Gram Panchayat and Another

D.V. Sehgal, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order dated 24-2-1987 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal. A suit was filed by the plaintiff-petitioners against the Gram Panchayat, Ranwar, and Goverdhan Dass respondent No. 2 for a declaration to the effect that the petitioners are the owners in possession of the suit land, and for granting a permanent injunction restraining respondent No. 1 from interfering with their possession. An application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was filed for grant of a temporary injunction which was allowed by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 26-8-1986. The respondents were restrained from taking possession of the land in dispute from the petitioners on the basis of the order dated 8-7-1986 passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Karnal, till the decision of the suit.

The respondents were aggrieved against the above order of the trial Court. They, therefore, preferred an appeal which has been allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, vide the impugned order. The order of the trial Court has been set aside and the ad-interim injunction granted by it has been vacated. This is how the petitioners have approached this Court through the present revision petition.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that Gowardhan Dass respondent No. 2 had made an application before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. Karnal, u/s 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short ''the Act'') against the petitioners which was allowed. It was alleged therein that the plaintiffs were in unauthorised possession of the suit land and that Gram Panchayat respondent No. 1 was its real owner. The Assistant Collector directed the petitioners to put the Gram Panchayat in possession of the land in dispute holding that it vested in it under the Act. An appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector was filed by the petitioners before the Collector under sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act but the same was dismissed. The petitioners then approached the Civil Court through the instant suit challenging the orders of the Assistant Collector and the Collector. They contended that they were the owners of the suit land and were in its possession. A question of title was involved in the proceedings u/s 7 of the Act before the Assistant Collector but instead of deciding the same u/s 13-A of the Act, he passed the summary order u/s 7 ibid which was impugned. The learned Additional District Judge has held that the orders passed by the Assistant Collector and the Collector could not be challenged in Civil Court as its jurisdiction is barred u/s 13 of the Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before me that the Assistant Collector acted without jurisdiction when he proceeded to adjudicate on the application of respondent No. 2 in a summary manner without deciding the question of title as put forward by the petitioners. He invited my attention to the proviso to Section 7 of the Act which lays down that if in the proceedings u/s 7 ibid the question of title is raised and proved prima facie, the Assistant Collector of the 1st Grade shall first decide the question of title u/s 13-A of the Act. He contends that without adjudicating on the question of title the summary order passed by the Assistant Collector On 8-7-1986 is ultra vires the Act I have given my thoughtful consideration to this submission, I am, however, unable to agree with the same. The proviso to Section 7 lays down in no uncertain terms that it is only when it is proved prima facie that there is a question of title that the Assistant Collector is required to decide the same u/s 13-A of the Act. This means that the Assistant Collector who is proceeding with the application u/s 7 of the Act was to be satisfied that the title of the petitioners was prima facie proved and the question in this regard required to be adjudicated upon. It is not in each and every case where the title of the Panchayat to the land in dispute is called in question during the course of proceedings u/s 7 of the Act that the Assistant Collector is to stay his hands so as to adjudicate the question u/s 13-A of the Act. It is clear, therefore, that the Assistant Collector was not satisfied that the petitioners prima facie had the title to the suit land and he thus proceeded in summary manner and passed the order u/s 7 of the Act. The appeal of the petitioners before the Collector also failed. As is clear from the provisions of Section 13, Civil Court cannot sit in judgment on the findings recorded by the Assistant Collector and the Collector. The petitioners, therefore, had two remedies open to them. Either they could challenge the order of the Collector before the higher authorities or by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution or else by filing a suit u/s 13-A of the Act, but they could not come under the general law to impugn the orders passed under the Act.

I am, therefore, of the considered view that the order passed by the learned District Judge in appeal is unexceptionable and it does not require interference in revision This revision petition is, therefore, dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.