The main legal point established is that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 21 of the Land Reforms Act is limited to specific circumstances, and a suit for declaration regarding ownership of land does not fall under the barred jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

Vikram Nath, J.

The present appeal assails the correctness of the judgment and order dated 09.03.2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A No. 250 of 1983, whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 25.9.1982 of the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur. The High Court held that the Civil Court's jurisdiction was barred under Section 21 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972¹[In short, the "Land Reforms Act"].

2. The background of this case is as follows:

2.1 The appellants, followers of the religious shrine of Dam Dama Baba Sahib Singh of Una, filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against the respondents and one Smt. Sangeet Kaur, daughter of Baba Madhusudan Singh Sahib Una. The appellants contended that the land detailed in the headnote of the plaint was dedicated to the religious and charitable institution Dam Dama Sahib of Una, under the management and supervision of Baba Madhusudan Singh.

2.2 The appellants pleaded that the shrine was worshipped by them and countless Sikhs. They asserted that Shri Kala Dhari, the founder of Una and a descendant of Baba Nanak, established the shrine, which was later managed by his successors. Shri Sahib Singh, the successor of Shri Kala Dhari, established another shrine at Quilla Jawahar Singh in Gujranwala (now in Pakistan), where followers gifted land for religious and charitable purposes. The income from these lands was used for maintaining the shrine and other charitable activities.

2.3 Upon the partition of India, 1440 kanals and 8 marlas of land were allotted to the Bedi families of Una in lieu of their land in Pakistan, including 735 kanals and 7 marlas allotted to Tikka Devinder Singh, a descendant of Baba Sahib Singh. The appellants argued that this land, though recorded in the name of Tikka Devinder Singh, was actually meant for the shrine and managed by Baba Madhusudan Singh.

2.4 The appellants claimed that despite not having the right to transfer the land, Baba Madhusudan Singh transferred 156 kanals and 8 marlas to the Agriculture Department of Punjab and 330 kanals and 14 marlas to his daughter, Sangeet Kaur. These transfers, the appellants contended, were illegal and not binding on the worshippers of the shrine.

2.5 The Government of Punjab initiated proceedings to declare part of this land as surplus. The Collector, Agrarian, Hoshiarpur, declared 20.0943 standard acres of the land as surplus on 28.06.1976. The appellants filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction, asserting that the land was of religious and charitable nature, and thus exempt under the Land Reforms Act. They sought a declaration that the land belonged to Dam Dama Sahib of Una and an injunction to prevent the respondents from transferring or declaring it surplus.

2.6 The Trial Court framed several issues for determination, including whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit under Section 21 of the Land Reforms Act. The Trial Court noted that the issue of jurisdiction was not pressed by the defendants during the proceedings and, regardless, decided it in favour of the plaintiffs. After considering the evidence, the Trial Court dismissed the suit on 15.12.1980, holding that the appellants failed to prove that the land was dedicated to a religious and charitable institution.

2.7 Aggrieved by the dismissal, the appellants filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur. The First Appellate Court, by judgment and decree dated 25.09.1982, partly allowed the appeal. The Appellate Court concluded that 133/290 share of the land in the suit was charitable and belonged to Dam Dama Baba Sahib Singh of Una. The court held that this share could not be declared surplus by the Collector and restrained the respondents from making further transfers of this share of the land.

3. The respondents, dissatisfied with the First Appellate Court's judgment, filed a Regular Second Appeal before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana