A suit seeking correction of revenue entries to show the true ownership of land is maintainable under Section 45 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act before a civil court, despite the bar of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Land Act.

N.K.Kapoor, J.

1. This is unsuccessful plaintiffs regular second appeal.

2. Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of the land as detailed in the head note of the plaint and are entitled to get their names duly recorded in the revenue record. In the pleadings it was stated that the land in possession of the plaintiffs is not covered by the definition of shamlat deh. In fact, earlier suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking exclusion of the land from the purview of shamlat deh was, decreed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade vide judgment and decree dated 22.7.1985 has become final between the parties.

3. The claim was resisted by the defendant Gram Panchayat on the ground that as per entries in the revenue record the land in dispute is recorded to be owned by the Gram Panchayat and is shamlat deh.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, issues with regard to the ownership of the property, its possession as well as maintainability of the suit in view of bar of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Land Act were framed. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and the appeal too met the same fate as learned District Judge was also of the view that Section 13 of the Act is bar to the filing of the civil suit.

5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Courts below erred in law in not properly comprehending the effect of the earlier judgment between the parties i.e. judgment and decree dated 22.7.1985 passed by Assistant Collector 1st grade u/s 13 of the Act (as then applicable). As per this judgment, the land, subject matter of adjudication, does not vest in the gram panchayat and is owned and possessed by the plaintiff. It is with this background that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs seeking correction of revenue entries which continue to record gram panchayat as owner.

6. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argued that the courts below rightly held that such a suit is not competent before a civil court.

7. Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Land Act barred the jurisdiction of the civil Court in respect of the matters relating to adjudication of question as to whether any property or any right or interest in any property is or is not shamlat deh or deemed to have been vest in the gram panchayat under the Act, i.e. as and when a question is raised whether any person had any right or interest in the property described as shamlat deh or that the property is not shamlat deh such a question is to be determined by an authority under the Act. As noticed earlier, this precise question has already been determined by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade vide judgment dated 22.7.1985. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the land in dispute stands excluded from the purview of shamlat deh. So the present controversy is only with regard to the entries in the revenue record which continue to show the gram panchayat to be the owner of the property. For correction of such an entry, suit, is maintainable under Section 45 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act before a court of competent jurisdiction - civil Court. Accordingly, I accept the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the court below and remand the case to the trial Court to decide the matter on merit. The Trial Court, of course, shall grant appropriate opportunity to the contesting, parties to lead evidence in support of their respective contentions. Parties to appear before the trial Court on 17.5.1996.