Modan Singh and others vs Kheta Sinsh

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is Plaintiff''s Second Appeal whose suit for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from using the suit land for purposes other than the common purposes of the owners of Patti Utam Singh was decreed by the trial court but has been dismissed in appeal

The Plaintiff Appellants filed a representative suit on behalf of the owners of Patti Utam Singh of village Malout, alleging that the suit land is the ownership of the owners in Patti Uttam Singh and was left for common purposes but now the Defendant is using the same for his own purpose. The suit was contested, inter-alia, on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The trial court decreed the suit holding that the suit land was jointly owned by all the owners of Patti Uttam Singh and further that the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit In appeal, the learned Senior Sub Judge with Enhanced Appellate Powers came to the conclusion that the Plaintiffs had no lacus standi to file the present suit as they had failed to prove that they had share in the Shamlat Patti It was also found that the Plaintiffs may sue for partition being co-sharers in the Shamlat Patti and that the suit for injunction as such was not maintainable. Consequently, the suit was dismissed Dissatisfied with the same, the Plaintiffs have filed this Second Appeal here.

During arguments it was contended on behalf of the Defendant-Respondent that according to the allegations of the Plaintiff, the suit land is Shamiat Deh as defined in Section 2(g) of the Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) According to the said definition, the lands described in the revenue record at Shamlat, Turfs, Patti, Pannas and Tolas and used, according to revenue record, for the benefit of the will age community or a part thereof for common purposes of the village are included in Shamlat-deh. Thus, it was argued, in view of Section 13 of the Act, no Court shall have the jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether any property or any right to or interest in any property is or it not shamlat deh vested or deemed to have been vested in a Panchayat under this Act. It was further argued on behalf of the Defendant-Respondent that as to whether the suit land is Shamlat-deh or not be left open as it has to be decided by the competent authority under the Act but in any case the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the allegations made in the plaint itself

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties I am of the considered view that as to whether the suit land is or is not Shamlat deh, vested or deemed to have been vested in the Panchayat under this Act, could not be decided by this Court in view of the provisions of Section 13 of the Act. The proper remedy for the Plaintiff Appellants would be to approach the authorities under the Act for appropriate relief, through the Gram Panchayat

In this view of the matter, the appeal succeeds, the judgments and decrees of courts below are set aside it is directed that the plaint be returned to the Plaintiffs in order to enable them to seek their remedy under the Act. There will be no order as to costs.