Gram Sabha Balad Kalanand Another vs Sarwan Singh and Others

S.P. Goyal, J.—This second appeal was admitted to Division Bench to settle the question as to whether the provisions of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) are retrospective in nature so as to affect the jurisdiction of civil court to continue with the suits instituted prior to its enactment.

The suit giving rise to this appeal was filed in the year 1974 by the Respondents against the Gram Sabha for a declaration that the land in dispute measuring 68 bighas, 17 biswas was owned and possessed by them and that the said land was not covered by the definition of Shamilat Deh as defined in the Act and therefore, did not vest in the Panchayat.

The suit was contested by the Panchayat and all the material allegations made in the plaint were controverted. It was further averred that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit.

The trial Court after recording the evidence of the parties upheld the claim of the Plaintiffs and decreed the suit. On the question of jurisdiction it was held that as the question involved was one of title, the civil court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. The decree of the trial Court was confirmed on appeal by the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, vide judgment dated April, 17, 1979 which led to the filing of this second appeal.

The finding of the trial Court on the question of jurisdiction which was not assailed in the lower appellate Court has been challenged on the ground that after the enactment of Section 13, the civil court had not jurisdiction even to proceed with a pending suit and the jurisdiction to decide as to whether any property is or is not Shamilat Deh has been entrusted exclusively to the Collector under the Act. Clause (a) of Section 13 which only is relevant for the purpose of this appeal reads as under:

No civil court shall have jurisdiction:

(a) to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether any property or any right to or interest in any property is or is not Shamilat Deh vested or deemed to have been vested in a Panchayat under this Act.

The argument of the learned Counsel for the Appellants is that by the provisions of the said clause, civil court has been barred not only from entertaining but also from adjudicating upon any question as to whether the property is or is not Shamilat Deh and therefore, not only the institution of the fresh suits has been debarred but also the decisions in the pending suits.

The word, "adjudicate" according to the Webster''s Dictionary, means to settle judicially and according to Oxford Dictionary, to try and determine judicially. According to Black''s law Dictionary, to adjudicate means to settle in the exercise of judicial authority or to decide judicially. It is therefore evident that on the enactment of the said Section 13, civil court has been debarred from not only entertaining the suit but also from passing any judgment upon any question whether is or is not Shamilat Deh. The conclusion is, therefore, irresistible that the civil Court ceases to have jurisdiction to pass any judgment even in a pending suit on the Said question. Our view finds full support from a Division Bench decision in Smt. Harbans Kaur v. Sardara Singh and Ors. 1973 R.L. R. 399 which was later on confirmed by the Supreme Court in Amarjit Kaur v. Pritam Singh and Ors. 1974 PLJ. 406. In that case the effect of the of Section 3 of the Punjab Pre-emption (Repeal) Act, 1973 was under consideration which reads as under:

On and from the date of commencement of the Punjab Pre-emption (Repeal) Act, 1973, no court shall pass a decree in a suit for pre-emption.

It was held by the Division Bench that in view of the express bar contained in this section, all pending suits whether at the stage of trial or appellate stage have to be dismissed.

On the specific provision of this Act also there are two reported decisions, i.e. Chandgi and Anr. v. Nihal Singh and Ors. 1979 RL.R 180 and Bara Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. 1978 RLR. 306 in which it was held that the civil court would cease to have jurisdiction even in pending suits to pass any judgment on the said question. However, I had expressed a different view in Gram Panchayat and Anr. v. Balwant Kaur and Anr. 1979 R.L.R. 95 because this point was not specifically urged nor my attention was drawn to the said words of Section 13. Now after thorough consideration of the language of Section 13 I have no hesitation in holding that the civil court would cease to have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon any question relating to the shamilat nature of the land even in pending suits after its enactment.

In the result this appeal is allowed, the impunged judgment and decree are set aside and the plaint is ordered to be returned to the Plaintiffs for presentation to the Collector having jurisdiction in the matter. No costs.

I.S. Tiwana, J.

I agree.