Dismissed

Gurdev Singh v. Gram Panchayat Pabla & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Feb 2018RSA/2779/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a regular second appeal. It held that civil courts lack jurisdiction to grant injunctions on land ownership disputes under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as Section 13-A vests exclusive authority with nominated bodies and Section 13 bars civil court jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed without interference.

Gurdev Singh Vs Gram Panchayat Pabla & Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

-1-

¶2

RSA No.2779 of 2011 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.2779 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Order:26.02.2018

Gurdev Singh

..Appellant

Versus

Gram Panchayat Pabala and others ..Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶11

Mr. S.S.Momi, Advocate, for respondent no.1.

¶12

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)

¶13

Plaintiff no.1-appellant is in regular second appeal against the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below, dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs, primarily on the ground that the civil court does not have jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon such dispute as the primary question which would be required to answer is whether the property vests with the Gram Panchayat or not?

¶14

Plaintiffs claim that this property is “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan” and is a “Bachat Land”(residuary land or un-reserved land) and, therefore, plaintiffs are entitled to protect their possession.

¶15

Both the courts have noticed that as per Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1961 Act'), the jurisdiction to decide ownership of the property exclusively vests with the authorities constituted under the Act of 1961. Both the courts have also noticed that under Section 13 of the 1961 Act, the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred.

¶16

Naresh Kumar 2018.03.06 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

-2-

¶18

RSA No.2779 of 2011 (O&M)

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the present case is only for grant of injunction and the question whether the property vests with the Gram Panchayat or not would not be required to be adjudicated upon, hence, the judgments of the courts below are erroneous.

¶20

On the other hand , learned counsel for the Gram Panchayat has pleaded that the plaintiff has to first cross the hurdle of proving his ownership and only thereafter he is entitled to injunction. The authorities constituted under the 1961 Act have the exclusive jurisdiction to decide on that issue.

¶21

This court has heard learned counsel for the parties at length and with their able assistance gone through the judgments passed by the courts below and the record.

¶22

In the considered opinion of this Court, both the courts have rightly held that before holding that the plaintiffs are entitled to injunction, the courts would be required to adjudicate upon whether the property vests with the Gram Panchayart or not. In view of Section 13-A of the 1961 Act, the jurisdiction to decide whether the property vests with the Gram Panchayat or not exclusively vests with the authority nominated under the Act of 1961.

¶23

Still further, Section 13 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of the civil court. Hence, there is no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below.

¶24

The regular second appeal is dismissed.

¶25

February 26, 2018 (ANIL KSHETARPAL) nt JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶26

Naresh Kumar 2018.03.06 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Gurdev Singh v. Gram Panchayat Pabla & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurdev Singh v. Gram Panchayat Pabla & 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

Toni Vs State of Punjab

Krishan Kumar etc. Vs Deepak Kumar Bagga and Ors.

Surjit Singh Vs Jatinder Singh and Anr.

Harjit Singh Vs Jaswinder Singh and Ors.

(O&M) Chhiddi and Others Vs Mangi Lal and Others

M/S Clarion Properties Ltd. Vs Legend Homes R.W.A. & Ors.