Sahaj Ram vs Chhaju Ram and others

S.S. Sodhi, J.—The controversy in revision here is founded upon the bar to the jurisdiction of the civil court as provided for by the provisions of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as applicable to the State of Haryana (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). The contention raised being that in terms thereof, the civil Court could not adjudicate upon the matter in dispute in the present suit.

The relevant facts here are that Sahaj Ram, defendant, had encroached upon a part of a public thoroughfare by constructing his house thereon. This encroachment was held to be illegal by the order of the Assistant Collector of April 26,1979 passed in proceedings u/s 7 of the Act. Keeping in view, however, that the defendant had constructed his house on the land encroached upon, the Assistant Collector ordered that Rs. 500/- be paid as compensation to the Gram Panchayat. This amount was duly paid by the defendant within the stipulated period and thereafter, on July 31, 1980, mutation in respect of this land was also sanctioned in favour of the defendant. It was the case of the plaintiffs that this order of the Assistant Collector was illegal and they consequently prayed that the defendant be directed to remove encroachment.

The Provisions of Section 13 of the Act are as reproduced here under : --

Bar of jurisdiction.--No civil Court shall have jurisdiction--

(a) to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether--

(i) any land or other immovable property is or is not shamlat deh;

(ii) any land or other immovable property or any right, title or interest in such land or other immovable property vests or does not vest in a Panchayat under this Act :--

(b) in respect of any matter which any revenue court, officer or authority is empowered by or under this Act to determine; or

(c) to question the legality of any action taken or matter decided by any revenue court, officer or authority empowered to do so under this Act.

It is well settled that the bar of section 13 of the Act could not apply to acts and orders which are without jurisdiction O. Chinnappa Reddy, J. in Mangal v. Gram Panchyat, village Faizabad 1977 P. L. J. 249, while holding that the jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain any suit canvassing the correctness of the decision of the authorities constituted under the Act, was barred by Section 13, also observed that a suit would lie in cases where the authorities under the Act, acted without jurisdiction.

Further, as regards encroachments on public thoroughfares, reference may be made to the observations of K. S. Tiwana, J. in Mitta Singh v. Sam Ram 1975 P. L. J. 243, where it was stated--"the consistent view of this Court is that in the matters of encroachments on public thoroughfare which affect the rights of the user by the public, a civil Court has the authority to entertain and decide the dispute."

The authority that Mr. H. L. Sarin, counsel for the defendant, founded his contention upon, was The Karnal Co-operative Farmers Society Ltd. Pehowa v. Gram Panchayat Pehowa (1976) P. L. R. 648 where it was held, "Section 13 of the 1961 Act bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain or of adjudicate upon any question as to whether any land or immovable property or any right or interest in such land or other immovable property vests or does not vest in a Panchayat under the Act". This does not however, provide a relevant precedent here as the matter pertinently and substantially in issue was not--whether or not the land vested in the Panchayat, but whether the Assistant Collector had the requisite authority to pass the order permitting the defendant to take the encroached land by paying Rs. 500/-as compensation to the Gram Panchayat? Mr. H.L. Sarin, counsel for the defendant was constrained to concede that he could point to no provision in the Act, which could be construed to so empower the Assistant Collector. Indeed, a reading of Section 7 of the Act would show that all that the Assistant Collector has been empowered thereby to do is to impose a penalty in respect of wrongful or unauthorised possession of land at the rate not less than Rs. 600/-and not more than Rs. 2500/- per hectare per annum. There is no provision of any lumpsum payment being made and the encroached land thereafter vesting in the wrong-doer. This being the position in law, the civil Court clearly I cannot be held to be barred from adjudicating upon the legality of the | order passed by the Assistant Collector.

There is thus- no merit in this revision petition which is accordingly hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel''s fee Rs. 200/-