After the amendment of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Haryana Amendment Act, 1980, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to determine the question as to whether an immovable property is or is not shamlat deh.

R.N.Mital, J.

1. This regular second appeal has been filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Gurgaon dated 21st October, 1982.

2. The plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the Gram Panchayat that he was owner and in possession of the property in dispute. It was pleaded that the land had been illegally mutated in the name of the Gram Panchayat vide mutation No. 429 decided on 27th February, 1980. It is further averred that the plaintiff had been in possession of the property for the last more than 40 years as owner and it was not a part of Shamlat Deh.

3. The suit was contested by the defendant, who controverted the allegations of the plaintiff and inter alia pleaded that the land was Shamlat Deh and that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. Several other pleas were also taken but they are not relevant for the purpose of decision of the appeal.

4. The trial Court framed 10 issues, out of which the only issue which has been challenged by the counsel for for appellant is as follows:-

"4. Whether the Civil Court had no jurisdiction?"

5. That Court held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. Consequently, it directed the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. On appeal, the District Judge, Gurgaon, reversed the aforesaid finding and held that the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. He also decided other issues in favour of the plaintiff and decree his suit. Gram Panchayat Mahu, defendant has come up in second appeal to this Court.

6. The only question that requires determination is whether the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to try the suit. The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 , was amended by the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Haryana Amendment Act, 1980 (Haryana Act No. 2 of 1981) and Section 13 was substituted. The new section reads as follows:-

"13. Bar of jurisdiction--No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction--

(a) to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether- (i) any land or other immovable property is or is not shamlat deh;

(ii) any land or other immovable property or any right, title or interest in such land or other immovable property vests or does not vest in a Panchayat under this Act;

(b) in respect of any matter which any revenue Court, officer or authority is empowered by or under this Act to determine; or

(c) to question the legality of any action taken or matter decided by any revenue Court, Officer or authority empowered to do so under this Act".

From a reading of the section it is evident that after coming into force of the new Section 13, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to determine the question as to whether an immovable property is or is not shamlat deh. The Civil Court has also no jurisdiction to try a suit if it contains a question as to whether any property vests in the Gram Panchayat or not. A similar question came up for decision before a Division Bench of this Court in Gram Sabha Balad Kalan and another v. Sarwan Singh and others, 1981 P.L.J. 311. In that case a declaration was sought that the land in dispute was owned and possessed by the plaintiffs, and it was not covered by the definition of shamlat deh, as defined in the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 , as applicable to Punjab. It involved interpretation of Section 3 of the Act as applicable to Punjab, which is pari materia with the substituted section 13 of the said Act, as applicable to Haryana. It involved one more question, namely, whether the amended definition will apply to the pending cases. That question also arises here. The learned Bench came to the conclusion that a Civil Court would cease to have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon any question relating to the shamlat land even in pending suits after the amendment of the Act. This judgment was followed in Gram Panchayat Sadhraur v. Baldev Singh and others, 1983 P.L.