Dhanpat Rai vs Gram Panchayat and Others

R.L. Anand, J.—Dhanpat Rai filed a suit for declaration against Gram Panchayat of Village Lakhno, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar through its Sarpanch to the effect that plaintiff is exclusive owner of the land measuring 2 Kanals 15 Marias bearing Khasra No. 59-R and joint owner to the extent of 1/2 share of land measuring 2 marlas bearing Khasra No. 58-R which have been detailed in the heading of the plaint and shown with letter BCDEFGAB, in the site plan attached. Further prayer made by the plaintiff was for the issuance of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his ownership and possession over the suit land and has also prayed for the possession of two and half marlas of the land bounded within the letters ABCD forming part of this land after the removal of all the materials and other construction placed therein by the defendants. The case set up by the plaintiff is that he was the owner of this land. He even applied to the revenue authorities for giving demarcation. Demarcation was given on 8.7.1982. The possession of the plaintiff is being threatened by the defendant Gram Panchayat and some of the areas which was allegedly encroached by the Gram Panchayat be also restored to him.

Notice of the suit was given to the defendant who filed reply and denied the allegations. According to the stand of the defendant they were carrying on development works in the village and the streets are being paved. The plaintiff does not want that the development work be carried out in the village, by the Gram Panchayat. Gram Panchayat never received any order from the B.D.O. for stopping this development work. The plaintiff is neither the owner nor in possession of the suit property. On the other hand the development work is being done strictly according to the demarcation given by the Patwari. The plaintiff want to encroach upon the land of the street under the garb of the present suit. The defence is that the village street is Shamlat Deh and in these circumstances the civil Courts has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Plaintiff filed re-joinder to the written statement filed by the defendant in which he reiterated his allegations made in the plaint by denying those of the written statement.

From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:-

Whether the plaintiff is exclusive owner of Khasra No. 59 and co-sharer in Khasra No. 58-R and for that reason is entitled to injunction prayed for? OPP

Whether the defendants have made any encroachments in the land covered by letters ABCD shown in the site plan attached with the plaint of the suit and the same forms part of Khasra No. 59 or 58? OPD

Whether the land shown in the letters BCDEFGHAB form part of Khasra No. 58 and 59 in suit? OPP

Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD

Whether the suit is barred for want of notice u/s 108 of the Gram Panchayat Act? OPD

Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

Whether the suit does not lie against the defendant Nos.3 and 5 in private capacity? OPD

Relief.

The parties produced evidence before the trial Court and on the conclusion of the proceedings issues No. 1 to 3 were decided in favour of the plaintiff. Issues No. 5 and 6 were decided against the defendant. Issue No. 7 become redundant. Resultantly the suit of the plaintiff was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 12.11.1984. Aggrieved by the judgment, defendants Shankri Devi, Sheela Devi and Laziawanti filed and appeal before the Court of Additional District Judge, Ropar by impleading Dhanpat and Gram Panchayat as respondents. The first Appellate Court for the reasons given in para No. 9 of the impugned judgment dated 5.1.1987 accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and came to the conclusion that Civil Court has no jurisdiction not to try the suit. Para No. 9 reads as under:-

"Now the question arises whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try this suit. In the written statement the defendant Shankri Devi etc. repeatedly mentioned that the demarcation of the street were taken from the Patwari of Nurpur Bedi and development work was carried out strictly in accordance with the demarcation. It is specifically denied that portion ABCD in the site plan is not a part of Khasra No. 58-R and 59-R belonging to the petitioner. The plaintiff has no right to claim possession of the land under street as it is not part of the land of the plaintiff. Certainly the dispute was whether the disputed portion ABCD is a part of Khasra No. 58-R and 59-R of the plaintiff or it was a part of the street which vest in the Gram Panchayat and as such a dispute has to be decided by the authorities under the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulations) Act, 1961, as mentioned in Ram Singh and Ors. v. Gram Panchayat, Mahal Kalan and Ors. (1986)88 P.L.R. 636. In this case the provisions of Sections 11 and 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act were discussed in detail in context with the case law laid down in (1986)88 P.L.R. 307 and Bhagu v. Ram Sarup, 1985 P.L.J. 366 and it was finally held that in a case where the defendants had raised the plea that the suit land was part of Shamlat Deh and that the plaintiff had no right or title in it, this question has to be decided by the Collector only u/s 11 of the Act and not by the Civil Court. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that there is not question of vesting or not vesting of the suit property in the Gram Panchayat, cannot be accepted. Similarly his contention that only question is regarding demarcation of the property, again is without any force because it has to be decided whether suit property is part of the street and vest in the Gram Panchayat or it is a part of the land of the plaintiff. Thus jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred."

Nobody has appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri G.S. Jaswal, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent, and I have gone through the records of this case.

Section 2(g)(f) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, lays down:

"1. xx xx xx xx xx 2. xx xx xx xx xx 3. xx xx xx xx xx 4. Lands used or reserved for the benefit of the village, community including, streets, lanes, play-grounds, school, drinking wells or ponds within abadi deh or gora deh and

xx xx xx xx xx "

The point for determination in this case would be whether the disputed site regarding which the plaintiff is claiming his right was a shamlat deh or not. It is the admitted case of the plaintiff himself from the pleadings that the site in dispute was a street/land which was going to be made pakka by the Gram Panchayat for the purpose of development of the village and under the order of BDO. Once it is established that the property in dispute was Shamlat Deh for purpose of Section 2(g)(4), in that eventuality the right of the plaintiff was to agitate the issue, if any u/s 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 which lays down that:

"Any person claiming right, title or interest in any land, vested or deemed to have been invested in a panchayat, under this Act or claiming that any land has not so vested in a panchayat, may submit to the Collector, within such time verified in the prescribed manner and the Collector shall have jurisdiction to decide such claim in such manner as may be prescribed."

Section 12 of the aforesaid Act further lays down that:

"As otherwise expressly provided in this Act, every order made by the Collector or the Commissioner shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court by way of appeal or revision or in any original suit, application or execution proceedings."

In these circumstances, the right of the plaintiff, if any was to file an application u/s 11 of the Act and before the Collector to obtain the adjudication of his alleged rights.

As per Section 13 of the said Act, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate upon any question, whether any property or any right to or interest in any property is or is not Shamlat Deh vested or deemed to have been vested in a Panchayat under this Act; or to question the legality of any action taken by the Commissioner to the Collector or the Panchayat under this Act or in respect of any matter which the Commissioner or the Collector is empowered by or under this Act to determine. In these circumstances the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit which was filed by the plaintiff because the site in dispute form part of Shamlet Deh for the purpose of Section 2(g)(4) of the Act. The first Appellate Court rightly appreciated the issue and held that the suit of the plaintiff-appellant was not maintainable in the Civil Court and that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain such suit. In these circumstances the appellate Court was left with no other option but to return the plaint to the plaintiff in order to present it before the competent authority under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 or it could give the direction to the trial court to return the plaint to the plaintiff against receipt and also allow by order that all documents which were filed in the suit be also returned to him. I do not see any illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Ropar dated 5.1.1987.

No merit in this appeal. Dismissed.

No order as to costs.