Back
1996 Supreme(P&H) 1154
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.L.Anand, J.
Kartar Singh (Dead) Through Lrs.
Versus
Gram Panchayat
Regular Second Appeal No. 2146 of 1979,
Decided On : AUGUST 6, 1996
The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try a suit involving the question of whether land vests in a Panchayat. Such a suit must be filed before the Collector under the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961.
Headnote:
PUNJAB VILLAGE COMMON LANDS ACT, 1961 - SECTION 13 - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - CIVIL COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO TRY SUIT INVOLVING QUESTION OF WHETHER LAND VESTS IN PANCHAYAT - SUCH SUIT MUST BE FILED BEFORE COLLECTOR.
Fact of the Case:
Gram Panchayat Laraoi and Darshan Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction against defendants restraining them from using the land in dispute for any purpose other than the purpose for which it was given. The defendants contested the suit, claiming that the land was mortgaged to them and that the Panchayat had no right to get it redeemed. The trial court and the first Appellate Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit, holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the provisions of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961. The Court relied on the Division Bench authority of Gram Sabha Balad Kalan v. Sarwan Singh and Ors., 1981 PLJ 311, which overruled the earlier judgment in Gram Panchayat Natini v. Balwant Kaur, 1979 P.L.J. 94, relied upon by the courts below.
Issues: Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try a suit involving the question of whether land vests in a Panchayat.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try a suit involving the question of whether land vests in a Panchayat. Such a suit must be filed before the Collector.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgments and decrees of the trial court and the first Appellate Court were set aside. The suit of the plaintiff-respondents was dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.
R.L.Anand, J.
1. This is defendants appeal and has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.3.1979 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Jalandhar who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 15.10.1975 passed by the Court of Sub-Judge, II Class, Jalandhar in favour of the plaintiff-respondents.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Gram Panchayat Laraoi, through its Sarpanch Darshan Singh, and Darshan Singh, son of Kartar Singh, in his individual capacity filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from using the land in dispute described in the heading of the plaint for any purpose other than the purpose for which it was given. In the alternative, the plaintiffs prayed for a decree of possession of the land in dispute. According to the plaintiffs, plamtiff No. 1, Gram Panchayat is the owner of the land in dispute which was given to Charan Dass Chela Saran Dass to enjoy its usufruct. Charan Dass mortgaged this land with defendant No. 1 and defendants No. 2 and 3. Charan Dass who was the malguzar in respect of the land in dispute died intestate without leaving any heir and thereby the land in dispute remained in the ownership of the plaintiff. The plaintiffs asked the defendants to accept the mortgage amount of Rs. 60/- and redeem the land and to give possession of the land in dispute to the plaintiff but defendants 1 to 3 refused to redeem the land and they connived to play mischief by joining hands with defendants 4 to 7 who under the garb of religious tinge threatened to use the land in dispute for the purpose other than that for which it was given by the owner. The defendants started raising construction over the land in dispute and as such the matter was brought to the notice of the police. Action was taken by the police against the defendants and it was agreed upon by the defendants that they would not further make any construction on the land in dispute and they would restore the land in dispute to its original position as it was before 19/20.1.1973. However, defendants have again started collecting building material on the land in dispute and have threatened to use it for the purpose other than for which it was given. Therefore, the defendants are liable to be restrained from using the land in dispute for any purpose other than for which it was given and in the alternative, the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree of possession.
3. The suit was contested by the defendants. They controverted the allegations of the plaintiffs and alleged that one Hari Das Chela Garib Dass had mortgaged 4 kanals 13 marlas of land out of the land in dispute with Maya son of Bhaura father of Kartar Singh in the year 1992 and 2 kanals 13 marlas of land was mortgaged by Hari Dass Chela Garib Dass in favour of Uttam Singh and Sunder Singh in the year 1921. After the death of Uttam Singh and Sunder Singh the mortgagee right were inherited by Tej Kaur who transferred the same in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3. This property never vested in the Panchayat and as such the panchayat had no right to get it redeemed. Even, if the plaintiffs had any right to get the land in dispute redeemed the claim of the plaintiffs has become barred by time. The defendants also took objections that the Panchayat has no locus standi to file the suit; that the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction and that the plaint was not properly valued.
4. From the Above pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court;
(1) Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to file the suit ?
(ii) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ?
(iii) Whether the plaint is properly verified, if not, its effect ?
(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for ?
(iv-A) Whether in the alternative the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the land in suit ?
(iv-B) Whether the suit for possession is not maintainable in t
