IMPORTANT POINT
Whether a lease granted by a Gram Panchayat is in violation of the provisions of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and Rules made thereunder in 1964 is to be decided by Assistant Collector of the First Grade only and in view of Section 13 of the Act, the jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain and adjudicate such question is clearly barred.

Headnote:Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and Rules thereunder of 1964-Lease of land granted by a Gram Panchayat for a period of 10 years for Rs. 10 lacs in favour of appellant-Challenged by respondents that the lease is in violation of 1961 Act and the rules made thereunder-Preliminary objection of appellant that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such a suit in view of the provisions of Sections 10-A and 13 of the Act-Trial Judge dismissing the suit holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try such a suit-Reversed by first appellate Court which is upheld in appeal by D.B.-Appeal against to Supreme Court by special leave-Whether provisions of Section 13 r/w Section 10A of the Act bar jurisdiction of a Civil Court to entertain the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs? (Yes)-Appeal allowed-Trial Court restored-Case law discussed-[C.P.C., 1908-Section 9-Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964-Rule 6(10)(2)].
       Held (reviewing case law and CPC) : In the light of the above discussion, the following principles may be re-stated:
        (1) If there is express provision in any Special Act barring the jurisdiction of a civil court to deal with matters specified thereunder the jurisdiction of an ordinary civil court shall stand excluded.
        (2) If there is no express provision in the Act but an examination of the provisions contained therein lead to a conclusion in regard to exclusion of jurisdiction of a civil court, the Court would then inquire whether any adequate and efficacious alternative remedy is provided under the Act; if the answer is in the affirmative, it can safely be concluded that the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred. If, however, no such adequate and effective alternative remedy is provided then exclusion of the jurisdiction of civil court cannot be inferred.
        (3) Even in cases where the jurisdiction of a civil court is barred expressly or impliedly the court would nonetheless retain its jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the suit provided the order complained of is a nullity. (Para 10)
       Held (after referring Section 10A) : A plain reading of Section 10-A, extracted above, shows that the Assistant Collector of the First Grade is empowered to call for record of any sale, lease, contract or agreement entered into by the Panchayat in respect of any land vested or deemed to be vested in it (whether such sale, lease, contract or agreement is entered into before or after the commencement of the Act) and examine such record for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or proprietory of such sale, lease, contract or agreement which has been entered into, in contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder or has been entered into as a result of fraud or concealment of facts or is detrimental to the interests of the Panchayat as prescribed. Notwithstanding anything as aforesaid, the Assistant Collector of the First Grade may cancel the sale, lease, contract or agreement or vary the terms thereof unconditionally or subject to such conditions as he may think fit. The proviso appended to sub-section (2) obliges the Assistant Collector of the First Grade to afford an opportunity of being heard to the parties to the sale, lease, contract or agreement before making an order under sub-section (2). From a combined reading of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 10-A, it is clear that any matter which raises the issue of violation of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder including the question of lease being entered into as a result of fraud or concealment of facts or even otherwise detrimental to the interests of the Panchayat as prescribed, is required to be decided by the Assistant Collector of the First Grade. In view of the provisions of Section 13 of the Act, referred to above, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain and adjudicating such questions is clearly barred. We may add that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case grant of impugned lease might be termed as illegal but it cannot be said to be nullity. (Para 16)
       Held finally : It follows that the High Court erred in upholding the order of the First Appellate Court that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the said questions in the suit. The impugned judgment and decree of the High Court confirming the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court are, therefore, set aside and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court are restored. We, however, hasten to add that this judgment does not preclude the respondents-plaintiffs from seeking redressal from appropriate authority under this said Act. The appeal is accordingly allowed. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. (Para 17)

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

What is the scope of Civil Court jurisdiction under Section 9 CPC in light of Section 10-A and Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961?

What is the proper forum to decide disputes about lease/sale of Panchayat land under the Act and Rules, and does Section 13 bar Civil Court involvement?

What is the effect of non-compliance with Rule 6(10)(2) and (1)(o)(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 on the validity of a lease and the jurisdiction to adjudicate?

JUDGMENT

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.-Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Leave is granted.

3. The judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in S.A.O.No. 28 of 2000, made on August 16, 2001, is assailed in this appeal filed by the first defendant in the suit.

4. The short question that arises for our consideration is : whether provisions of Section 13 read with Section 10-A of the Act bar jurisdiction of a civil court to entertain the suit filed by the respondents.

5. The factual matrix giving rise to the question may be noticed here. The appeal arises out of the suit filed by respondents (plaintiffs), in representative capacity, challenging the validity of the lease of land measuring 280 kanals situated within the revenue estate of village Madnaka, Tehsil Hathin, District Faridabad (for short, the suit land ), granted by the Gram Panchayat Madnaka for a period of 10 years for Rs.10 lacs in favour of the appellant on October 1, 1997. It is alleged that the lease is in violation of the provisions of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (referred to in this judgment as the Act )* and the Rules made thereunder. The plea of the appellant (defendant), inter alia, is that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the provisions of Sections 10-A and 13 of the Act.

6. On July 26, 2000, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit holding that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. However, on appeal the First Appellate Court took the view that the civil court did have jurisdiction and accordingly allowed the appeal decreeing the suit of the respondents by its judgment and decree dated September 5, 2000, which was assailed in Second Appeal, SAO No. 28 of 2000, in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh by the appellant herein. The second appeal was dismissed on August 16, 2001. That judgment and decree of the High Court are under challenge in this appeal.

7. The main contention urged by Mr. Manoj Swarup, the learned counsel for the appellant, is that as the validity of the lease is required to be decided by the Assistant Collector of the First Grade under Section 10-A(2)(iii) of the Act, the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred by Section 13 thereof. Mr. Avijit Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel for the respondents, invited our attention to the provisions of sub-rule (2) and sub-rule (10) of Rule 6 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Rules, 1964 (for short, the Rules ) and contended that inasmuch as a lease of land could be granted only for a period not exceeding five years under the Rules but the impugned lease was granted for ten years and that though the auction notice was required to be issued fifteen days prior to the date of the auction, all the three notices for auction for lease of suit land, were not in conformity with sub-rule (10), being for a shorter period, as such the lease granted by the Gram Panchayat would be wholly illegal, void and without any legal consequence and, therefore, the civil court would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit and adjudicate the disputes raised therein.

8. The jurisdiction of the courts to try all suits of civil nature is very expansive as is evident from the plain language of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure*. This is because of the principle ubi jus ibi remedium **. It is only where cognizance of a specified type of suit is barred by a statute either expressly or impliedly that the jurisdiction of the civil court would be ousted to entertain such a suit. The general principle is that a statute excluding the jurisdiction of civil courts should be construed strictly.

9. The question, when and in what circumstances, can a suit of civil nature be said to be barred by a special statute, is no longer res integra. In M/s. Kamala Mills Ltd. vs. State of Bombay [AIR 1965 SC 1942], a seven-Judge Bench of this Court laid down th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 767

What is the scope of Civil Court jurisdiction under Section 9 CPC in light of Section 10-A and Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961?

What is the proper forum to decide disputes about lease/sale of Panchayat land under the Act and Rules, and does Section 13 bar Civil Court involvement?

What is the effect of non-compliance with Rule 6(10)(2) and (1)(o)(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 on the validity of a lease and the jurisdiction to adjudicate?

Cases Referred (2)