Gram Sabha Chachowal . vs Karam Singh

N. K. Kapoor, J.

This is defendant''s regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiffs was accepted and so the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed as prayed for.

Briefly put, plaintiffs filed a suit against the Gram Panchayat restraining it from interfering in their possession as owner over the land measuring 43 Kanals, 9 Marlas situated in village Chachowal, Tehsil Nakodar, District Jalandhar. According to the plaintiff, their father Mehru was in possession of land as a cosharer and on his death the land fell to the share of the plaintiffs who remained in cultivating possession of the same and this way the defendant had no right or title in the suit property.

The suit was resisted by the defendant who filed written statement. The defendant denied that the plaintiffs were in possession of the land in dispute as a cosharer or had become owners of the same.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :

Whether the plaintiffs are cosharers in possession of the land in suit ?

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction prayed for ?

Relief.

On appraisal of documentary and oral evidence led by the parties, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the land in dispute as cosharer and so decided this issue against the plaintiffs. Under issue No. 2, the Court come to the conclusion that the order of eviction has been passed against the plaintiffs under Section 7 of, the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"'') and thus they are not entided to the injunction prayed for. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed, vide judgment and decree dated 12.5.1976.

Before the lower appellate Court, the appellants contended that they are in possession of the suit land as cosharer and the land under their cultivating possession does not exceed their share in the shamlat deh as on 26.1.1950. Thus, the Panchayat has got no right or tide in the suit land. Alternatively, the appellants contended that since their possession over the suit land is for more than 12 years without payment of rent or by payment of charges not exceeding the land revenue and cess payable thereon, their possessory rights are protected in terms of Section 4(3)(ii) of the Act,. Thus, exclusion of land was sought under Section 2(g)(viii) or in the alternative under Section 4(3)(ii) of the Act. The appellate Court repelled the first submission of the counsel in view of the specific bar of Section 13 of the Act, i.e., no civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether any land or other immovable property or any right or interest in such land vests or does not vest in Panchayat under the Act. However, the lower appellate Court found merit in the contention of the counsel with regard to the second proposition that they being in cultivation possession for more than 12 years proceeding the commencement of the Act without payment of rent are fully protected and so restrained the defendant from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 18.1.1980. The learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court on the ground that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to adjudicate upon the points raised by the plaintiffs is a specifically barred under the Act. Reproduction of the provisions of the Act relevant to the point in issue would be helpful in understanding the respective contentions of the parties. These are

"2(g) ''Shamilat deh'' includes

(1) ......

(2) ......

(3) ......

(4) ......

(5) ......

But does not include land which

(i) to (vii) ..........

(viii) was shamilat deh, was assessed to land revenue and has been in the individual cultivating possession of cosharers not being in excess of their respective shares in such shamilat deh on or before the 26th January, 1950;

Section 4(3Xii): rights of persons in cultivating possession of shamilat deh, for more than twelve years immediately preceding the commencement of this Act, without payment of rent or by payment of charges not exceeding'' the land revenue and cesses, payable thereon;

Section 11. Decision of claims of right title or interest in shamilat deh:

(1) Any person claiming right, title or interest in any land vested or deemed to have been vested in a Panchayat at under this Act, or claiming that any land has not vested in a Panchayat, may submit to the Collector, within such time as may be prescribed, a statement of his claim in writing and signed and verified in the prescribed manner and the Collector shall have jurisdiction to decide such claim in such manner as may be prescribed.

(2) Any person on a Panchayat aggrieved by an order of the Collector made under Subsection (1) may, within sixty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal to the Commissioner in such form and manner as may be prescribed and the Commissioner may after hearing the appeal, confirm, vary or reverse the order appealed from and may pass such order as he deems fit.

Section 13. Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts : No Civil Courts shall have jurisdiction :

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

(b) to question the legality of any action taken by the Commissioner or the Collector or the Panchayat under this Act; or

(c) in respect of any matter which the Commissioner or the Collector is empowered by or under this Act determine."

Section 2(g)(viii) excludes the land though recorded as shamlat deh if the same is in cultivating possession of a cosharer not exceeding his share as on 26.1.1950. Section 4(3)(ii) of the Act protects the possessory rights of persons who are in cultivating possession of shamlat deh for more than 12 years preceding the commencement of the Act without payment of rent or by payment of charges not exceeding the land revenue and cesses payable thereon. Section 11 of the Act provides that any person claiming right, title or interest in any land vested or deemed to have been vested in a Panchayat can submit an application before the Collector laying his claim in writing and such claim shall be decided by the Collector. The Act further confers a right of appeal to an aggrieved party before the Commissioner. Section 12 of the Act makes the order made by the Collector or the Commissioner, as the case max be, final which cannot be called in question in any Court by way of appeal or revision or in any original suit, application or execution proceedings. Thus, as per scheme of the Act, as and when a dispute is raised with regard to the matter which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act, the jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain/adjudicate upon is completely barred. The apex Court in case Ram Singh and others v. Gram Panchayat Mehal and others, 1986 PLJ 636 : 1987 R.R.R. 630, examined the ambit and scope of 2(g), 11, 12 and 13 of the Act and has held that the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred in respect of the matter which came within the purview of the provisions of the Act. In the present case, the appellants sole contention is that even the right of person in cultivating possession of shamlat deh for more than 12 years without payment of rent or by payment of charges not exceeding the land revenue and cess payable thereon under Section 4(3)(ii) of the Act is in the nature of interest which is being claimed by the person. Seeking exclusion of such interest in the Panchayat and so far the determination of this interest, it is within the ambit of the powers of the Collector under Section 11 of the Act. He further urged that Section 13 sub clause (a) squarely covers the points in issue. I find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants and am of the view that even the determination of possessory rights in terms of Section 4(3)(ii) of the Act is barred under Section 13(a) of the Act. Thus, the impugned judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court is unsustainable in law. I accordingly accept the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court. Since the plaintiffs have laid claim for exclusion of land in terms of Section 2(g) (viii) and in the alternative under Section 4(3)(ii) the Act, I order the return of the plaint to the plaintiffs who may, If so advised, present the same before the Collector for adjudication of their claim in terms of Section 11 of the Act and in that event this plaint shall be deemed to be the statement of their claim. The decision of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade under Section 7 of the Act, Exhibit D1, will, in no manner, prejudice the case of the plaintiffs before the Collector. The plaintiffs will file statement of their claimplaintbefore the Collector within one month from the passing of this judgment. On the failure of the plaintiffs to submit such a claim, Gram Panchayat will be at liberty to take steps for recovery of possession in terms of order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade passed under Section 7 of the Act, Exhibit D1, or any other appropriate measure according to law. No costs.