Ram Parshad vs The Gram Panchayat Bata

L.N. Mittal, J.

CM No. 7178-C of 2010

Allowed as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions.

CM No. 7179-C of 2010

The application is allowed and Annexures A-1 to A-3 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

CM No. 7180-C of 2010

The application is dismissed as withdrawn without prejudice to CM No. 13298-C of 2009 already filed for the same relief.

CM No. 7181-C of 2010

The application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions and amended grounds of appeal annexed with the application are taken on record.

Main Appeal.

Plaintiff-Ram Parshad has filed the instant second appeal having remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below.

Plaintiff filed suit against Gram Panchayat, Bata (Respondent-Defendant) seeking declaration that Plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land measuring 23 kanals 10 marlas and revenue entries depicting the Defendant as owner thereof are liable to be corrected in favour of the Plaintiff. Permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from dispossessing the Plaintiff from the suit land was also claimed.

Plaintiff''s case is that vide judgment and decree dated 10.02.1964, the Plaintiff was declared to be owner in possession of the suit land. On its basis, mutation No. 665 was also sanctioned in favour of the Plaintiff and since then Plaintiff is absolute owner in possession of the suit land, but in the subsquent jamabandis, Defendant has been recorded to be owner of the suit land.

Defendant''s case is that the suit land was ''Banjar Qadim'' prior to consolidation of holding and was also being used as ''Charagah'' by the villagers and, therefore, the suit land has vested in Gram Panchayat under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) and accordingly Defendant is owner in possession of the suit land. Preliminary objections including objection that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit were also raised.

Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palwal vide judgment and decree dated 23.08.2008 dismissed the Plaintiff''s suit. First appeal preferred by the Plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 15.06.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the Plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the case file.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant vehemently contended that vide judgment and decree dated 10.02.1964, the Plaintiff was declared to be owner in possession of the suit land. Copies of said judgment and decree were not produced in evidence by the Plaintiff. However, in first appeal, the Plaintiff moved application for additional evidence to produce the same, but the said application for additional evidence was dismissed by the lower appellate Court vide order dated 13.06.2009 Annexure A-3 which is also sought to be challenged in the instant second appeal by way of amended grounds of appeal. Be that as it may, jurisdiction of Civil Court to try the suit is barred by Section 13 of the Act. Section 13 of the Act categorically lays down that no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether any land or other immovable property is or is not ''shamlat deh'' and whether any land or other immovable property or any right, title or interest therein vests or does not vest in a Panchayat under the Act. In the instant case, Defendant-Gram Panchayat specifically pleaded that the suit land has vested in Defendant-Gram Panchayat. The Plaintiff, however, claims himself to be owner of the suit land. Consequently, the question to be adjudicated upon is whether the suit land vested or did not vest in Defendant-Gram Panchayat. However, jurisdiction of Civil Court to adjudicate this question is specifically and expressly barred by Section 13 of the Act. It may be noticed that according to Section 4 of the Act, ''shamlat deh'' vests in Gram Panchayat, notwithstanding any decree or order of the Court. Consequently, notwithstanding judgment and decree dated 10.02.1964 pleaded by the Plaintiff allegedly declaring him to be owner in possession of the suit land, the question whether the suit land vested or did not vest in the Gram Panchayat has to be adjudicated upon by the Authorities under the Act and jurisdiction of Civil Court to adjudicate upon the said question is barred.

For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine.