Sucha Singh and Others vs Gram Panchayat

K. Kannan, J.—- The suit was filed by the Gram Panchayat contending that the property had become vested as shamlat deh in the Panchayat and the property having been already mortgaged with possession to the defendants, it was liable for redemption. The suit had been filed, therefore, to redeem the mortgage and recover the possession of property. The contention of the defendant was that the property was assigned by mortgagee in March 1950 under Ex. D1 and since the proprietors had earlier mortgaged the property even prior to 1950 i.e. before the Punjab Village Common Lands Act and consequently, the property was not shamlat deh and did not become vested with the Gram Panchayat. It was the contention that title to the property of the Gram Panchayat as shamlat deh was denied and the justification of a claim to title or interest in shamlat deh could be entertained only by the Collector u/s 11 and there was a bar of jurisdiction u/s 13 for a Civil Court to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether any property or right in property was or was not shamlat deh vested in or deemed to have vested in Panchayat. The trial Court decreed the suit and the appeal by the defendants was also dismissed. The case has come for adjudication on two substantial questions of law which are raised as follows:- 1. Whether the suit property was vested with the Gram Panchayat to entitle it to sue for redemption?

Whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred by virtue of the provisions of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act as applicable to Punjab?

Before entering upon question of whether it is shamlat deh or not, the basis for suit was that the plaintiff, who claimed the property to have vested in it, was trying to enforce a right of redemption only through statutory vesting and not by any transfer inter vivos from the original proprietors of the property. If this right was denied by the defendant and the issue was whether it was shamlat deh or not, then Section 11 contemplates an action not merely at the instance of a person who claimed that it was not shamlat deh but it contemplates also a right or a claim by a Panchayat that it was shamlat deh and that would require to be adjudicated only before the Collector. Section 13 reads that no Civil Court would have jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether the properly is shamlat deh that vested with the Gram Panchayat or not. When the defence was taken denying the character of property as shamlat deh by the defendant, it should have been appropriate for the Panchayat only to have restored to an action for obtaining the right and then securing possession by redeeming the mortgage in a manner known to law. The vesting provision that Section 4 contemplates will operate in the event of the Collector finding that it is shamlat deh. Such vesting will not take away right of a mortgagee which is protected u/s 4(3)(iii) of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act

I allow the appeal to the extent of finding that the adjudication relating to the right of the Panchayat as vesting in it and that it was shamlat deh would require to be considered by the Collector. The second appeal is allowed on the issue of jurisdiction only and the Panchayat shall be at liberty to file an application in the manner contemplated u/s 11 within a period of four weeks and the Collector shall determine the character of property and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed to the above extent.