In a second appeal regarding disputed ownership of land claimed to be Panchayat Shamlat Deh, this Court held that civil courts lack jurisdiction to decide such title questions. The appeal challenging the lower courts' dismissal of the suit regarding Shamlat Deh land was dismissed.
Appeal dismissed; no relief granted to the appellant.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 4292 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.1.2012.
Yudhvir Singh
--Appellant
Versus
Gram Panchayat Halla and another
--Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present:Mr. Deepak Verma, Advocate for Mr. K.K. Rajput, Advocate for the appellant.
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J
The plaintiff-appellant is in second appeal before this Court having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below.
The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the suit land and that the District Development & Panchayat Officer, Gurdaspur had no jurisdiction to decide the matter regarding the suit land. It was pleaded that the father of the plaintiff-appellant namely Puran Chand had filed an injunction suit against the Punjab State regarding khasra no. 19/8 which was decreed in 1983 and the appeal was also dismissed. The Panchayat had filed eviction application pertaining to the suit land, which was also decreed in the year 1999. However, in appeal the case was remanded to the D.D.P.O and which matter is pending. It was pleaded that the father of the plaintiff-appellant, Puran Chand had given more valuable land of abadi to the Gram Panchayat for purposes of a Janj Ghar and in exchange the suit land had become the ownership of Puran Chand, father of the plaintiff-appellant. As regards the exchange the Panchayat had passed a resolution which stood approved by
RSA No. 4292 of 2010 (O&M)
-2-
the D.D.P.O as well as the Development Commissioner but had been cancelled by the Under Secretary. Accordingly, Puran Chand had been constrained to file an injunction suit. It was pleaded that Puran Chand had been shown owner in possession of the suit land in the revenue record from 1995 to 1999 and the mutation had also been sanctioned on 25.9.1996. It was further pleaded that the proceedings pending before the D.D.P.O regarding ejectment of the plaintiff-appellant were illegal and not maintainable as the approach of the D.D.P.O had not been fair and proper opportunity was not being granted to the plaintiff-appellant for summoning of the necessary record.
The suit was contested in terms of a written statement having been filed at the hands of Gram Panchayat of village Halla, Tehsil & District Gurdaspur, wherein a categoric stand was taken that the decree passed by the civil court in favour of the father of the plaintiff-appellant was null and void as the same had been passed in connivance with Sarpanch Dharam Chand. It was stated that the suit property comprised in Killa No.19/8 was actually in the ownership of the Panchayat and the ejectment proceedings against the plaintiff-appellant were pending before the D.D.P.O. Even the stand in the separate written statement filed by the D.D.P.O was on similar lines.
Upon the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Trial Court:-
RSA No. 4292 of 2010 (O&M)
-3-
Upon having heard respective counsel for the parties and having scanned the evidence led on record, the suit filed by the plaintiffappellant was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff-appellant preferred a civil appeal which has also been dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur vide judgement dated 10.8.2010 thereby affirming the judgement and decree passed by the Trial Court.
I have heard Mr. Deepak Verma, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant at length.
There would be no dispute as regard the fact that the father of the plaintiff-appellant had exchanged land with the Gram Panchayat and the order of the Development Commissioner was passed and the same was exhibited as Ex.D-2. However, such exchange could not be valid without the requisite approval of the State Govt. Such exchange was cancelled vide Ex.D-3. The earlier suit filed by the father of the plaintiff-appellant namely Puran Chand on which reliance was placed i.e. Ex.D-3 was an injunction suit simplicitor and no question or title could have been decided in such suit.
Section 13 and 13 (A) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 read as under:-
“ 13 . Purpose for which land may be gifted- A Panchayat may gift land in Shamlat Deh, vested in it under the Act for the purpose of hospital, dispensary or educational or
RSA No. 4292 of 2010 (O&M) -4-
charitable institutions with the previous approval of the State Govt.
13-A. Giving of the land to landless worker- A Panchayat may with the previous approval of the Govt., give land in Shamlat Deh free of cost, to a landless worker residing in the Sabha area for construction of a house for his residence:
Provided that the landless worker to whom such land is given shall not be entitled to sell, exchange or mortgage it except mortgaging it for the purposes of raising loan to construct a house on it.”
A perusal of Section 13(A) of the Act leaves no manner of doubt that a person asserting that land is or is not shamlat deh or that any right, title or interest therein vests or does not vest in a Gram Panchayat is required to file a petition under Section 13-A of the Act. Section 13 of the Act enacts a statutory bar that bars the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain any such dispute. A Division Bench of this Court in a decision dated 21.12.2009 rendered in case of Harpal Singh and others Vs. State of
Punjab and others reported as 2010 (2) R.C.R (Civil) 78 has held as follows:-
“5. Civil Court judgement and decree dated 8.1.1990 as affirmed on 23.11.1993 and that of 15.9.2004 and 22.8.2007, on which learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon, are not relevant, as such judgements of the courts are without jurisdiction. The question is whether the land in dispute is shamlat deh and vests with the Panchayat. Such question can exclusively be determined by the authorities in terms of Section 13 of the Act. Decision of the Civil Court deciding such question indirectly would not operate as res judicata as the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide such question of title. Therefore, findings recorded by the Civil Court in respect of the ownership of the petitioners are the findings of a Court without jurisdiction.”
RSA No. 4292 of 2010 (O&M) -5-
Accordingly, I find no infirmity in the findings of the courts below in holding that the civil court would have no jurisdiction to decide the question of title pertaining to land which is shamlat deh and vests with the Panchayat. Findings, if, any recorded by a civil court in respect of such land would be held to be findings of a court without jurisdiction.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has placed reliance on the following judgements of this Court:-
1. Bhagwan Sarup and others Vs. State of Punjab & others 2008(2) L.A.R 113.
2. Sohan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2007(2) L.A.R. 151.
3. Gram Panchayat, village Badbar Vs. State of Punjab, 1996(1) R.R.R 458.
I find that the reliance upon the decisions aforementioned are wholly misplaced. There would be no dispute with the proposition that under the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and the rules framed thereunder, it would be open for the Gram Panchayat to exchange land vested in it for the benefit of the inhabitants of the village as also with the proposition that order pertaining to exchange of land could be cancelled by the Govt. only upon issuance of a show cause notice and upon compliance of the principles of natural justice but in the present suit neither was any approval granted by the State Govt. pertaining to the alleged exchange and furthermore no challenge had been laid to such cancellation of the exchange deed in the suit. At the costs of reiteration the earlier suit filed by Puran Chand i.e. the father of the plaintiff-appellant Ex.P-3 was only an injunction suit and the question of title was not involved.
RSA No. 4292 of 2010 (O&M) -6-
I find no perversity in the findings recorded by the courts below. The present second appeal does not involve any question of law much less substantial question of law.
For the reasons recorded above, the present appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE
25.1.2012. lucky
Whether to be reported? Yes
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to decide the question of title regarding village common land (Shamlat Deh)?
Whether the alleged exchange of land by the Gram Panchayat is valid without previous approval of the State Government?
Whether the findings below that the civil court was without jurisdiction are correct?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Harpal Singh and others Vs. State of PunjabFollowed¶37
Harpal Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2010 (2) R.C.R (Civil) 78
Bhagwan Sarup and others Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶42
Bhagwan Sarup and others Vs. State of Punjab & others, 2008(2) L.A.R 113
Sohan Singh Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶43
Sohan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2007(2) L.A.R. 151
Gram Panchayat, village Badbar Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶44
Gram Panchayat, village Badbar Vs. State of Punjab, 1996(1) R.R.R 458
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Yudhvir Singh
Gram Panchayat Halla
Gram Panchayat Halla
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
