The jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred in disputes regarding shamlat deh, and compliance with procedural requirements, such as the mandatory notice under Section 52 of the Haryana Municipal Act, is essential.

Mahesh Grover, J.

1. This appeal by the plaintiffs/appellants is directed against the judgments of the learned trial Court dated 28.2.2000 and that of the learned first Appellate Court dated 12.5.2004.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellants claimed to be proprietors of land in village Khairpur, Tehsil and District Sirsa. A suit in representative capacity was filed by them pleading that during consolidation proceedings in the year 1962-63, 541 Kanals 3 Marlas of land was carved out of the holdings of the proprietors of land by imposing a general cut upon the holdings. This land was reserved for common purposes and some land which was detailed in the plaint was reserved for the income of the Gram Panchayat, Khairpur. This is the land which is stated to be in dispute and it measure 184 Kanals 6 Marlas. It was pleaded that this land was never used for the benefit of village community and remained in possession of Jumla Mushtarka Malkan. A notification was issued on 9.10.1975 by which the entire area of village Khairpur was included in the Municipal limits of Municipal Committee, Sirsa and the revenue entries were allegedly changed in the year 1992. The appellants pleaded that they were in continuous possession of this land and they were owners thereof and further that the area lay outside the Municipal limits and prayed for declaration to that effect and also pleaded that injunction be granted to restrain the defendants/respondents from interfering in their possession. Mutation No. 4629 sanctioned in favour of the Municipal Committee was also challenged to be null and void.

3. The respondents contested the suit and said that after the issuance of notification, the respondents were left with no other option but to include the suit land in the Municipal area which stood in the name of `Jumla Mushtarka Malkan as the same vested in the Gram Panchayat/Municipal Committee. It was pleaded that as a matter of fact the land was reserved for common purposes of the village and continued to be under the control of the Gram Panchayat and the appellants had no interest in it and that the appellants were precluded from challenging the proceedings of consolidation taken in the year 1962-63. As per the notification, the extended area of Municipal Committee had consumed the entire land of village Khairpur and the properties which were owned by the Gram Panchayat came to vest in the Municipal Committee and therefore the mutation had rightly been sanctioned. A separate application was also moved by the respondents invoking the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. to say that the plaint deserves to be rejected. The trial Court framed the following issues :-

1. Whether the suit land is Jumla Mushtarka Malkan and is owned by the plaintiffs, as alleged ? OPP

2. Whether mutation No. 4629 entered on 24.5.92 and sanctioned on 26.5.92 mentioning the suit land as shamlat deh is null and void, against the law and facts, not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs and is liable to be set aside, as alleged ? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction, as prayed for ? OPP

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD

5. Whether the suit is bad for want of proper sanction under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. ? OPD

6. Whether plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their own act and conduct ? OPD

7.Whether the plaint does not disclose any cause of action under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. ? OPD

8. Whether the suit is false and frivolous and is liable to be dismissed with special costs under Section 35-A CPC ? OPD

9. Relief.

4. While determining issues No. 1 and 2, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the land was recorded as Jumla Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Arazi Hassab Rasad, Jumla Malkan or Mushtarka Malkan as shamlat deh within the meaning of Section 2(g) (4) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It categorically concluded that the su