LexRAM SINGH & ORS. versus GRAM PANCHAYAT MEHAL KALAN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
RAM SINGH & ORS. v. GRAM PANCHAYAT MEHAL KALAN & ORS. SEPTEMBER 22, 1986 [E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND V. KHALID, JJ.] Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961: ss. 11-13- , ~ · Suit against Panchayat seeking declaration and possession of sham/at ,~--) • deh-Correctness of entries in revenue records-Whether Civil Court . has jurisdiction. . · -..,,, I >. .. Civil Procedure Code, 0.1., R. &-Civil Suit for declaration/pos- session of Shamlatdeh lands-Not maintainable. Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 conferred jurisdiction on the Collector to decide cases of persons claiming ·right, title or interest in any land vested or deemed to have been vested in a Panchayat, or claiming that any land has not so vested in a Panchayat and against such order an appeal was provided to the Commissioner. Under s. 12 every order of the Collector or Commis- sioner was final and such order could not be called in question in any Court by way of appeal or revision or in any original suit, application or execution proceedings. Section 13 of the Act provided that no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether any property or any right to or interest in any property is or is not shamlat deb vested or deemed to have been vested in a Panchayat undei: the Act. The petitioners instituted a civil suit under 0.1, r. 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure for a declaration that they were the owners in posses- sion of the suit land, that the GFam Panchayat had no sort of right in the suit land, that the suit land had been wrongly shown as belonging to the Panehayat by entries made in the revenue records which were not bind- ing on the plaintiffs, and for an injunction restraining the Pancbayat from interfering with their possession. The respondent-Panchayat con- ,tended in its written statement that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit by virtue of the provisions of s. 13 of the Act. The trial court, however held that since the question involved in the suit was 831 A B c D 'E F G H A 8 c D E F G 832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11986] 3 S.C.R. simply one of title to the suit land and it was not necessary to decide whether the suit land was shamlat deh or not and whether the land had validly vested in the Panchayat or not being sbamlat deb, it had juris- diction to try the suit. Allowing the revision petition of the Panchayat the High Court held that the suit was not maintainable before the Civil Court since the issues involved in it were not triable by such court by virtne of s. 11 read withs. 13ofthe Act. • Dismissing the appeal by special leave, the Court, HELD: The High Court was right in holding that the suit was uot maintainable before the civil court. The plaintiffs who claimed to be the owners of the suit land had avoided to seek a declaration that the suit land was not shamlat deb. They cannot by drawing their plaint cleverly be not clainting a declaration that the land in question was not shamlat deb confer jurisdiction on the civil court when by virtue of the Act the jurisdiction of civil court to try such suits had been taken away. The suit had been filed against the Panchayat and the Panchayat had raised the plea that the suit land was a part of the shamlat deh and that the plaintiffs had no right or title to it. The civil court cannot make a declaration in favour of the plaintiffs without deciding the question whether the pi;operty in question was shamlat deb or not and whether it belonged to the Pancl)ayat or not. That question has to be decided by the Collector only under section 11 of the Act and not by the civil court. l835H; 836A-C; 836G I Bhagu& Ors. v.Ram Sarup & Ors., 11985] P.L.J. 366,distinguished. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 7309 of 1986 From the Judgment and Order dated 16.4.1986 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No. 571of1986. Harbans Lal and G.K. Bansal for the Petitioners. The Order of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J. The petitioners were plaintiffs. They instituted a suit in a representative capacity under Order 1 rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the Court of the Additional Senior Sub- H Judge, Barnala for a declaration that they were the owners in posses- :;I• . .,£ I J... RAM SINGH v. GRAM PANCHA Y AT [VENKATARAMIAH) 833 sion of the suit land along with some others, t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.