Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether any land or other immovable property is or is not shamlat deh or 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 the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.

PREM CHAND JAIN, J.

1. Bhim Singh and others, plaintiffs, filed a suit for injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in their possession over the plot comprised in Killa No. 25 min of Rectangle No. 11 situate in village Kharkheri, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. The suit was contested by the Gram Panchayat on the allegation that the property in dispute vested in the Gram Panchayat and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The trial Court, on consideration of the entire matter, held that the suit land did vest in the Gram Panchayat. However, on the question of jurisdiction, the trial Court recorded a finding that as the plaintiffs did not admit that the suit land was shamlat deh, therefore, the question being of title, the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. As the plaintiffs were not found to be the owner of the property in dispute, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 17th April, 1973.

2. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, on 26th September, 1973. Still dissatisfied the present regular second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs.

3. The appeal came up for final hearing before me on 17th February, 1983. The only contention that was raised by Mr. N.C. Jain, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant, was that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the question whether the suit land is shamlat deh and had vested in the Gram Panchayat or not. In this situation, according to the learned counsel, the judgments and decrees of the Courts below had to be set aside and the plaint had to be returned to the plaintiffs for presenting the same before the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). As the decision of the aforesaid contention depended upon the interpretation of a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Bajinder Singh V/s. Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Guhla, 1983 Pun LJ 116, I decided to refer the matter for decision to a larger Bench. That is how we are seized of the matter.

4. It may be observed at the outset that the aforesaid contention of Mr. N.C. Jain, learned counsel for the plaintiff, was not controverted by Mr. M.S. Liberhan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. However, we have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant independently also and find merit in the same.

5. In order to decide the contention property, it is necessary to trace the legislative history of this provision. As originally enacted, Section 13 of the Act prescribed that no Civil Court shall have any jurisdiction over any matter arising out of the operation of the said Act. Apparently, as a result of the interpretation placed by the Courts with regard to the nature of the bar to the jurisdiction of Civil Courts, the Legislature chose to make an amendment therein by the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation), Haryana Act 34 of 1974, which came into force on 12th November, 1974. By virtue of this amendment, the original Section 13 was substituted and two new sections, namely, Sections 13-A and 13-B were added to the Act. These amendments were challenged in this Court in Karnal Co-operative Farmers Society Ltd. V/s. Gram Panchayat Pehowa, 1976 Pun LJ 237. The Division Bench in an exhaustive judgment came to the conclusion that sub-section (3) of Section 13-A was ultra vires and since the other provisions of the said section revolved around the same, therefore, the whole of the section was unconstitutional and was consequently struck down. It was noticed in that judgment that no challenge to the vires of Section 13-B of the Act had been made. The State of Haryana apparently accepted the said judgment and did not appeal against the same. However, as a necessary consequence, it enacted the Punjab Village Com