Gram Panchayat Village Mau vs Amin Chand

R.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)

This regular second appeal has been filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Gurgaon dated 21st October, 1982.

The plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the Gram Panchayat that he was owner and in possession of the property in dispute. It was pleaded that the land had been illegally mutated in the name of the Gram Panchayat vide mutation No. 429 decided on 27th February, 1980. It is further averred that the plaintiff had been in possession of the property for the last more than 40 years as owner and it was not a part of Shamlat Deh.

The suit was contested by the defendant, who controverted the allegations of the plaintiff and inter alia pleaded that the land was Shamlat Deh and that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. Several other pleas were also taken but they are not relevant for the purpose of decision of the appeal.

The trial Court framed 10 issues, out of which the only issue which has been challenged by the counsel for for appellant is as follows:

"4. Whether the Civil Court had no jurisdiction?"

That Court held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. Consequently, it directed the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. On appeal, the District Judge, Gurgaon, reversed the aforesaid finding and held that the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. He also decided other issues in favour of the plaintiff and decree his suit. Gram Panchayat Mahu, defendant has come up in second appeal to this Court.

The only question that requires determination is whether the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to try the suit. The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, was amended by the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Haryana Amendment Act, 1980 (Haryana Act No. 2 of 1981) and Section 13 was substituted. The new section reads as follows:

"13. Bar of jurisdictionNo Civil Court shall have jurisdiction

(a) to entertain or adjudicate 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". From a reading of the section it is evident that after coming into force of the new Section 13, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to determine the question as to whether an immovable property is or is not shamlat deh. The Civil Court has also no jurisdiction to try a suit if it contains a question as to whether any property vests in the Gram Panchayat or not. A similar question came up for decision before a Division Bench of this Court in Gram Sabha Balad Kalan and another v. Sarwan Singh and others, 1981 P.L.J. 311. In that case a declaration was sought that the land in dispute was owned and possessed by the plaintiffs, and it was not covered by the definition of shamlat deh, as defined in the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as applicable to Punjab. It involved interpretation of Section 3 of the Act as applicable to Punjab, which is pari materia with the substituted section 13 of the said Act, as applicable to Haryana. It involved one more question, namely, whether the amended definition will apply to the pending cases. That question also arises here. The learned Bench came to the conclusion that a Civil Court would cease to have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon any question relating to the shamlat land even in pending suits after the amendment of the Act. This judgment was followed in Gram Panchayat Sadhraur v. Baldev Singh and others, 1983 P.L.J. 19, by J.V. Gupta, J. The matter again came up recently before a Division Bench in R.S.A. No. 1718 of 1973, Bhim Singh v. Gram Panchayat of village Kharkheri and others, 1984 R.R.R. 585, decided on 7th April, 1983. Jain, J. while speaking for the Bench is his lucid and exhaustive judgment held:

"...........I hold that in cases where the Civil Court decree has not become final and the matter is still pending in appeal, then on the question whether land is or is not shamlat deh the Civil Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon that question. This view of mine finds support from a Division Bench judgment in Gram Sabha Balad Kalan and another v. Sarwan Singh and others, 1981 P.L.J. 311 and single Bench judgments in Lalji Singh and others v. Gram Sabha, Lahli and others, 1982 P.L.J. 140, and Gram Panchayat Sadhraur v. Baldev Singh and others, 1983 P.L.J. 19.

I am in respectful agreement with the abovesaid view.

Faced with that situation, the learned counsel for the respondent has urged that the jurisdiction of Civil Court cannot be excluded for determining the rights of a private person in a land of which he had been in possession as owner. He further submits that in the present case, the respondent also challenged the attestation of the mutation in favour of the Gram Panchayat. In support of his contention he places reliance on Lal Singh and another v. Gram Sabha Neja Dalla Kalan and others, 1977 P.L.J. 266, Amar Singh v. Rattan Lal and others, 1978 P.L.J. 150, Kashmiri Lal v. Banwari Lal, 1980 P.L.J. 83 and Kanshi Ram v. The State of Haryana and others, 1980 P.L.J. 311. I regret my inability to accept the submission. As already mentioned above, section 13 of the Haryana Act as substituted by Amendment Act provided that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether any land or other immovable property was or was not shamlat deh. The provision as incorporated in clause (a)(i) of section 13 did not exist earlier. All the decisions referred to by Mr. Gopi Chand relate to the interpretation of the old Section. In the circumstances, he cannot derive any benefit from the ratio therein. In the present case, apparently mutation by which land has been mutated in the name of Panchayat deh, has been challenged but in reality the plaintiff has claimed that the property was not shamlat deh and it did not vest in the Gram Panchayat. It is well settled that in order to know as to what relief has been claimed, whole of the plaint must be taken into consideration. Therefore, I am of the opinion, that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the suit.

For the aforesaid reasons, I accept the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the appellate Court and restore that of the trial Court. In the circumstances of the case, I, however, make no order as to costs.

The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 13th June, 1983.