Isher Singh vs Badan Singh alias Battan Singh and ors.

G.C. Mital, J.

Ishar Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain Gram Panchayat Kang Kalan. Members of Panchayat and its Sarpanch from interfering in his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land measuring 24 Kanals in Killa No. 62 situated in village Kang Kalan and claimed to be its owner as a cosharer and in the alternative by way of possessory title. He pleaded that the land was not shamlat deh and could not vest in the Gram Panchayat.

The Gram Panchayat contested the suit and pleaded that the land in dispute was shamllat deh, and that he was estopped and his act and conduct from filing the suit.

The trial Court decided the suit in favour of the plaintiff but on appeal by the Gram Panchayat, Sarpanch and most of the members, the lower appellate Court by judgment and decree dated 3.1.1978 allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit after recording that the plaintiff was not proved to be owner of the land in dispute nor he was found to be in possession as for two years prior to 197172 the plaintiff had taken the land on lease from the Gram Panchayat and for the year 197172 his son had taken the lease and presumed that he surrendered possession in favour of his son. On the aforesaid findings, it was held that the plaintiff was estopped from denying the title of the Gram Panchayat. This is plaintiff''s second appeal.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that in view of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short the Act), as it stands today, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to go into the question whether the land in dispute is or is not shamilat deh. The relevant provision is as under :

"13 Bar of jurisdiction of civil CourtsNo 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 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 to determine"

In view of the above quoted provision, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the question involved and the plaintiff on this matter is relegated to his remedy to initiate proceedings under Section 11 of the Act, if he so chooses.

As regards possession of the land in dispute, it is an admitted case of the parties because the plaintiff alleged that he was in possession of the land in dispute as an owner, the defendants in reply pleaded that his possession is not that of owner but that of a lessee. Even during trial, Badan Singh Sarpanch stated that the plaintiff was in possession of the land in dispute. On these facts, it is argued by Shri Gur Rattan Pal Singh, Advocate, for the plaintiff that the plaintiff is entitled to injunction to the limited extent that he cannot be dispossessed except in due course of law. This argument of the learned counsel has obvious merit. If under the Act or the Rules framed thereunder, on the expiry of the term of yearly lease, the plaintiff can be dispossessed, it will be open to defendants to dispossess him under the relevant provision or by taking action under Section 7 of the Act or under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973, or under any other provisions of law available to the Gram Panchayat.

For the reasons recorded above, the judgments and decrees of the two Courts below are modified and it is ordered that the plaintiff should not be dispossessed from the land in dispute except in due course of law. No costs.