LexSARJEET SINGH (D) TH. LRS. versus HARI SINGH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• [2014] 11 S.C.R. 65 SARJEET SINGH (D) TH. LRS. v. HARi SINGH & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 9722 of 2014) OCTOBER 15, 2014 [DIPAK MISRA AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.] Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 - Suit for declaration and possession of suit land - Decreed A B by trial court as well as first appellate court - High Court in C second appeal set aside the decree and granted liberty to plaintiff to seek partition of the land - On appeal, held : The suit land was 'Shami/at Patti Sayar' i.e. common village land, Jicenced to the co-sharers - Hence no one including plaintiffs could have laid claims to separate or individual possession D thereof. ss. 7, 11 and 13 - Suit for possession of Shami/at deh land - Maintainability - Held: Civil court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the question pertaining to Shami/at deh - E Appropriate forum for redressal of such grievances, was Collector - The suit was not maintainable. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD:1. The land in question is admittedly Shami/at F . Patti Sayar, i.e. common village lands, the user of which is not confined strictly to cultivation and hence no person, including the Plaintiffs, could have laid claims to separate or individual possession thereof. The land in question was, in fact, licenced to the co-sharers and was G not their privately owned properties, individually or severally or collectively. Shami/at deh require to be carefully and assiduously protected, and this is the 65 H 66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 11 S.C.R. A avowed purpose of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. [Paras 7, 8 and 9] [74-A-D; 75-B] 2. The suit as framed and filed was not maintainable in view of the Act. The provisions of Sections 7 and 11 8 of the Act hav.e been blatantly violated by the Plaintiffs and ignored by the Courts below. It is evident from the reading of the provisions u/s. 7 and 11 of the Act that instead of approaching the Civil Court, if the Plaintiffs had any grievance against the defendants as regards the C possession of the suit land, they ought to have ventilated their grievances before the Collector and not before the Civil Court. Section 13 of the Act makes it clear that the Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate upon any question pertaining to shamilat deh. [Paras 9 and 10] [74-F-H; 75-C] D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9722 of 2014. From the Judgment & Order dated 7.09.2012 of the High E Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 1346 of 2009. Shish P., N.P. Midha, S.K. Gupta, Balbir Singh Gupta for the Appellant. F Raja! Sharma, Dinesh Verma, Shbhasish Bhowmick for G the Respondent. The Judgment of the ,Court was delivered by VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. Leave granted. 1. The Appellants essay to restore the concurrent views of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Rewari, in Civil Suit No.308 of 1997 in terms of the Judgment and Decree d'3ted 27.8.2002, as also the Judgment and Decree dated H 11.12.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rewari, • • SARJEET SINGH (D} TH. LRS. v. HARi SINGH 67 [VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.] in Civil Appeal No.50 of 2002. Their views, however, did not A find favour with the High Court in the impugned Judgment dated 7.9.2012 passed in Regular Second Appeal No.1346 of 2009. 2. The parties are shareholders of Shami/at Patti Sayar of land comprised in Khewat No.300 Khatoni No.551, Khasra No.622(0-10), Gair Mumkin Gatwar, situated in village Dahina, as per the jamabandi of the year 1970-71. The Plaintiffs/ Appellants filed a suit for declaration, and possession of the suit land against the Defendants/Respondents. The Plaint does B not contain a categorical stand as to whether the Defendants/ Respondents are co-sharers along with the Plaintiffs/Appellants C in respect of the suit land. It has been pleaded that the Defendants have no concern whatsoever with the suit land which has not been validly partitioned among the co-sharers. The Written Statement is also devoid of clarity inasmuch as it is pleaded that the Plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit D land and have no right to file the suit; but that constructions have been carried out by the Defendants in the presence of the Plaintiffs, as well as other persons mentioned in Schedule A of the Plaint, which contains the names of the co-sharers of the suit land. It is then pleaded in the Written
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.