The jurisdiction of the Civil Court to determine the dispute under Section 77(3)(d) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 after the coming into force of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953.

H.S.Bedi, J.

1. This reference to the Full Bench has been necessitated on account of an order made by N.K.Sud, J. on 10.9.2001.

2. The matter arises out of the following facts:-

The petitioner, Shiv Charan, filed a suit Under Section 77(3)(d) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (hereinafter called the Act) against respondent No.5 Sham Lal in the Court of the Assistant Collector, Ballabgarh claiming the status of an occupancy tenant Under Sections 5 & 8 thereof. The Assistant Collector dismissed the suit vide his order dated 27.10.1989 (Annexure P-l to the petition). The appeal filed by the petitioner before the Collector, Faridabad was, however, allowed by order dated(Annexure P-2) and it was held mat he was an occupancy tenant on the land in question. Respondent No.5 thereupon filed as appeal against the order (Annexure P-2) before the Commissioner Gurgaon circle, which was dismissed onvide order Annexure P-3. He thereafter filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, pleading for the first time mat a suit for declaration of occupancy rights lay in a civil and not in a Revenue Court after fee promulgation of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the Vesting Act) as held by this Court in Puran Lal Aggarwal and Ors. v. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana and Ors.,1 (1992-2)102 P.L.R. 669. The Financial Commissioner accordingly allowed the revision vide order dated 2.12.1998 (Annexure P-4 to the petition) ignoring the judgment of another Single Bench in Jiwan v. Ram Sarup,2 (1998-1)118 P.L.R. 349 cited before it by stating that the judgment in Puran Lal Aggarwals case,1 (supra) had not been brought to notice in the latter case, It is against the order (Annexure P-4) that fee present writ petition was filed by the tenant.

2.1. The matter came up for hearing before N.K. Sud J., who noticed mat these was a conflict of opinion with regard to the issue involved between two Single Bench judgments of this Court, i.e., Puran Lal Aggarwals case,1 (supra), which had relied on a Division Bench of this Court in Amin Lal v. Financial Commissioner, (Revenue), Haryana and Ors.,3 (1972)74 P.L.R. 96 in which it had been held that it was the Civil Court alone and not the Revenue Court which had the jurisdiction to determine the dispute in such matters and the judgment in Omkar Singh and Ors. v. Nirmal and Ors.,4 (2000-3)126 P.L.R. 361, whereby the learned Single Judge had opined to the contrary after noticing (though not opining on) the judgment in Amin Lals case (supra) and as such this matter needed to be considered by a Larger Bench. It is in this situation that the present matter has come before the Full Bench.

3. In addition to the present writ petition, three other matters have also come before us, i.e., R.S.A. No.1729 of 1984 (State of Haryana v. Ghansham Dass and Ors.) S.A.O. No.47 of 1999 (Vijay Singh and Anr. v. Raghbir and Ors.) and S.A.O. No. 10 of 1993 (Gram Panchayat, Yakubpur v. Nanak). Mr. Amrit Lal Jain, who is appellants counsel in R.S.A. No.4298 of 2001 has also appeared before us as an intervener with the permission of the Court.

4. We have accordingly heard the learned counsel for the parties in extenso.

5. Mr. R.KJain, the learned counsel for the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No.5266 of 1999 has raised two arguments before us; firstly that the civil Courts jurisdiction was limited to giving a declaration of ownership only where the tenants were recorded as occupancy tenants in the revenue record and in no other case and in the alternative that both Civil as also the Revenue Courts had a co-ordinate jurisdiction in such matters and the finding of the leaned Financial Commissioner that it was the exclusive domain of the Civil Court, was erroneous. He has in this context placed reliance on a large number of judgments of this Court and in particular to Omkar Singhs and Jiwans cases (supra).

4.2 Mr. Amrit Lal Jain, the intervener has supported Mr. R.K.Ja