Tara Singh vs Joint Director Panchayat etc.

G.R. Majithia, J.—The petitioner has assailed the order of the Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab, (exercising the powers of the Commissioner). Chandigarh dated April 21, 1980, affirming on appeal the order of the District Development and Panchayat Officer (exercising the powers of the Collector). Amritsar dated November 16, 1978, in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

The undisputed facts are :--

An application u/s 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) for eviction of the petitioner from the disputed land was filed by Gram Panchayat, Bhittewad. The same was allowed by the Assistant Collector, I Grade, Ajnala vide order dated August 31, 1970. Appeal against this order was rejected by the Collector, Amritsar vide order dated December 31, 1970. The petitioner challenged these orders in Civil Suit No 43 of 1971. The Civil Court vide judgment and decree dated October 22, 1973 held that the suit land was not Shamlat Deh and, as such, could not vest in the Gram Panchayat and that the order of the Assistant Collector, I Grade, dated August 31, 1970 and the appellate order of the Collector dated December 31, 1970 were null and void. It was further held that the petitioner was in joint possession of the suit land alongwith other co-sharers. The judgment and decree of the Civil Court were assailed by the defendants to the suit who were Gram Sabha, Bhittewad and Block Development Officer, Chogawan Panchayat Samiti, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar, On April 6, 1977, a fresh application was moved u/s 7 of the Act as amended by Punjab Act No. 19 of 1977, for eviction of the petitioner from the land, which was the subject matter of Civil Suit No. 43 of 1971 decided on October 22, 1973.. The application was allowed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer (exercising the powers of the Collector), Amritsar vide order dated November 16, 1978 and the same was affirmed on appeal, by the Joint Director of Panchayats, Punjab (exercising the powers of the Commissioner), Chandigarh vide order dated April 21, 1980. Before the Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab it was pointed out that the Civil Court has earlier held that the disputed land did not vest in the Gram Panchayat and,- as such, Section 7 of the Act was inapplicable and the proceedings under that Act could not be initiated. He negatived the plea holding, thus :-

"Since the land stands mutated in the name of the Gram Panchayat vide mutation No. 86 dated 14-3-1965 and no appeal having been filed there-against in a competent court of law more so when the appellant has failed to prove that the land had not been reserved for common use of the residents of the Village. I, therefore, see no ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned collector. This appeal is accordingly dismissed."

It is unfortunate that the State has conferred appellate powers under the Act even on such officers who do not have even elemantry knowledge of law. The term "justice and fair play" is alien to some of them. They even did not try to understand the elementary provisions of the Statute under which they exercise appellate powers. If the Joint Director of Panchayats, Punjab had invited his attention to the provisions of Section 13 which were substituted by Punjab Act 19 of 1976, he would not have made the error of the type as has been made in the instant case. Section 13 reads, thus :--

Bar of jurisdiction in Civil Court.--No 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 or deemed 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."

After this amendment, no scope has been left for doubt that the Civil Court would not entertain a lis in which a dispute regarding title in Shamilat land arises for adjudication. All disputes regarding right, title or interest in any land vested or deemed to have vested in the Gram Panchayat under the Act have to be decided by the Collector in the manner prescribed u/s 11 of the Act and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. This Act will apply prospectively and not retrospectively. The decrees passed before the commencement of the Punjab Act No. 19 of 1976 will not be rendered null and void. The vires of Section 13 were challenged in Gram Panchayat Deh Mauza Gharhi Brahman, Tehsil Sonepat v. Kesho Narain (1984) 86 P. L. R. 518. It will be useful to refer the following observations of I D. Dua, J. in the judgment :--

"In my opinion, the provision taking away the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts cannot be considered to be a mere matter of procedure which should not be held to operate retrospectively. The suit had been instituted at a time when the Civil Court was fully competent to entertain the suit. Later amendment cannot, without express words, or necessary intendment, divest the Court of the jurisdiction which it exercised at the time of entertaining the suit so as to undo the entire proceedings held by the Civil Court upto the date of the amendment. Such a construction would be contrary to all canons of statutory interpretation and would also tend to defeat the cause of justice and fair play."

It could not be disputed that before the enactment of Punjab Act No. 19 of 1976, Civil Court had the jurisdiction to determine the nature of the land and once the Civil Court had held that the land was not Shamilat Deh or it did not vest in the Gram Panchayat, the finding so recorded by it was open to exception under the provisions of the CPC by way of first appeal or second appeal and the authorities under the Act could not override the effect of this judgment. So long as the judgment of the Civil Court remained in operation, the Revenue Officers could not exercise summary jurisdiction under the Act and evict the occupiers of the land on grounds which are not germane to the statute but are extraneous to it.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition succeeds. The order of the Collector dated November 16, 1978 and the order of the Joint Director of Panchayats Punjab (exercising the powers of the Commissioner), Chandigarh dated April 21, 1980 are quashed During the course of arguments, it was brought to my notice by the counsel for the Gram Sabha that pursuant to the order under challenge, it has taken possession of the disputed land from the petitioner. If the Gram Sabha has taken possession of the land from the petitioner, it will restore back the same to him within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. It will also reimburse the petitioner the losses caused to him because of the illegal dispossession. No costs