Dismissed

Sudagar Singh & Ors. v. Gram Panchayat of Vill. Hoshiarpur & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Feb 2012RSA/1912/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This second appeal challenging a civil suit for declaration and injunction regarding land allotment was dismissed. The Court held that civil court jurisdiction is barred under Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act for ownership disputes between Panchayats and proprietors, noting the Director's consolidation order was without jurisdiction. Injunction was denied due to lack of possession

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed; the civil suit remains non-maintainable due to bar of civil court jurisdiction; no permanent injunction granted.

Sudagar Singh & Ors. Vs Gram Panchayat of Vill… — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

RSA No.1912 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.1912 of 2011

¶5

Date of Decision: February 21, 2012

¶6

Sudagar Singh and others

¶7

.......Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Gram Panchayat of village Hoshiarpur and others

¶10

.......Respondents

¶11

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA

¶12

Present: Mr.LS Bhullar, Advocate for Mr.Kamaldeep Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the appellants.

¶13

Ms.Rupinder Kaur Thind, Advocate for caveators-respondents.

¶14

<><><>

¶15

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.

¶16

The plaintiff-appellants are in second appeal before this Court. 2. Briefly noticed, the plaintiffs filed a suit in a representative capacity seeking a declaration regarding mutation No.1270 of village Hoshiarpur sanctioned by the revenue authorities regarding allotment of 4 Marla of land to each of the private defendants of the suit land on the basis of letter No.465 issued by the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Ropar (for short to be referred as 'the DDPO') which, in turn, having been issued in pursuance to a resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat of village Hoshiarpur, to be null and void, illegal and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff. A further consequential relief of permanent injunction was

¶17

RSA No.1912 of 2011

¶18

¶19

also prayed for restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession over the suit property. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs along with other khewatdars were the co-owners of the suit property. Defendant No.1-Gram Panchayat of village Hoshiarpur had illegally passed a resolution regarding allotment of 4 Marlas of land to each of defendants No. 2 to 146. The DDPO had thereafter issued letter dated 17.7.1997 to the Naib Tehsildar as regards sanctioning of the mutation which had also been duly sanctioned. The case pleaded by the plaintiffs was that the Gram Panchayat had no authority to allot such land to the private defendants as in the revenue record, the same had been described as Hasab Rasad Zar Khewat and even the shares of the proprietors in the suit land already stood calculated in terms of order dated 10.6.1997 passed by the then Director, (Consolidation), Punjab.

¶20

Gram Panchayat, village Hoshiarpur-defendant No.1 contested the suit in terms of raising a preliminary objection that the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred under Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act (for short to be referred as 'the Act'). On merits, it was stated that the ownership of the suit land vests with the Gram Panchayat and as such, it had the authority and jurisdiction to allot the land to the private defendants who belong to the Scheduled Caste and Backward Class categories and were landless. Accordingly, a resolution had been passed, in pursuance to which the DDPO had issued the requisite letter to the Naib Tehsildar, and the mutation had been sanctioned in favour of defendants No. 2 to 146 in respect of 4 Marla land each.

¶21

The parties went to trial on the following issues framed by the

¶22

RSA No.1912 of 2011

¶23

¶24

trial Court:

¶25

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for? OPP

¶26

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

¶27

Whether this court has no jurisdiction in view of the provisions of section 13 of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act? OPD

¶28

Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form?OPD

¶29

Whether the suit property has already been mutated in favour of the defendants as alleged in the written statement? OPD

¶30

Relief.

¶31

The trial Court dismissed the suit and even the civil appeal preferred by the plaintiff-appellants has also been dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 19.11.2010 passed by the first Appellate Court.

¶32

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants at length.

¶33

Learned counsel for the appellants has raised a three-fold submission. Firstly, it was contended that the suit land having been described as shamlat deh – Hasab Rasad Zar Khewat which means that the suit property is the ownership of the proprietors of the village, as such, the Gram Panchayat could not have passed resolution regarding allotment in favour of the private defendants/respondents. Secondly, learned counsel would contend that an order dated 10.6.1997 had already been passed by the Director (Consolidation), Punjab wherein the ownership of the suit property

¶34

RSA No.1912 of 2011

¶35

¶36

had been held to vest in the proprietary body and even the shares of the proprietors stood determined. Lastly, learned counsel would contend that the question with regard to ownership of the suit property was not involved and as such, the jurisdiction of civil court was not barred by Section 13 of the Act. As such, it was contended on all three counts, the Courts below have grossly erred and the findings given by the Courts below are perverse.

¶37

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions raised on behalf of the appellants and have perused the case file. 9. There would be no dispute as regards the settled position in law that the Director (Consolidation), Punjab is not vested with any authority to decide the question as regards ownership between Gram Panchayat and the proprietors. The reliance placed upon the order dated 10.6.1997 passed by the Additional Director (Consolidation), Punjab, Exhibit P1, would be wholly without jurisdiction and non-est.

¶38

It is equally well settled that the jurisdiction of the civil court would be barred insofar as the determination of a question regarding ownership of land between Gram Panchayat and the proprietary body of the village is concerned. Such bar is specifically contained in Section 13 of the Act. It would clearly be open for the plaintiff-appellants to have their interest in the property in question, if any, to be determined by the authorities under the Act itself. I find no infirmity in such view having been taken by both the Courts below to hold the jurisdiction of the trial Court to be barred and as such, holding the suit itself to be non-maintainable.

¶39

A finding of fact has also been returned by the trial Court wherein an admission has been recorded of the plaintiffs themselves as

¶40

RSA No.1912 of 2011

¶41

¶42

regards they not being in possession over the suit land and as such, the Courts below had rightly declined the relief of permanent injunction.

¶43

The present second appeal must fail as it does not raise any

¶44

question of law, much less a substantial question of law.

¶45

Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶46

Appeal dismissed.

¶47

( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA ) February 21, 2012 JUDGE SRM

¶48

Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No

Sudagar Singh & Ors. v. Gram Panchayat of Vill. Hoshiarpur & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudagar Singh & Ors. v. Gram Panchayat of Vill. Hoshiarpur & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nachhattar Singh Vs Dalip Singh

Rajbir Singh Vs Office in Charge, Assam Regiment Centre-Cum Records, Shillong & Anr.

Rc Dutta Vs Fci & Ors.

Swaran Kaur Vs Om Parkash

Nirmal Singh Vs Gram Panchayat

Jaswinder Kaur Vs Rattan Singh & Others