Back
1979 Supreme(P&H) 124
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.S.Sandhawalia, Prem Chand Jain and S.S.Kang JJ.
Munshi Ram
Versus
State Of Haryana
Civil Writ Petition No. 8740 of 1978,1976 of 1978,5178 of 1978,
Second Appeal Order No. 54 of 1977,
Decided On : AUGUST 2, 1979
S.13-B of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act (18 of 1961) covers suits against Panchayat for exclusion of land from Shamilat-deh and a suit for injunction against Panchayat is also covered.
Headnote:
VILLAGE COMMON LANDS (REGULATION) ACT - SECTION 13-B - INTERPRETATION - CONFLICT BETWEEN DIVISION BENCH JUDGEMENTS - NO CONFLICT - SECTION 13-B COVERS SUITS AGAINST PANCHAYAT FOR EXCLUSION OF LAND FROM SHAMILAT-DEH - SUIT FOR INJUNCTION AGAINST PANCHAYAT ALSO COVERED - SECTION 13-B NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL - NO APPEAL PROVIDED AGAINST JUDGEMENT OF ASSISTANT COLLECTOR - NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL - SUIT FOR EXCLUSION OF LAND FROM SHAMILAT-DEH - TRIED BY CIVIL COURT - REMANDED TO ASSISTANT COLLECTOR - JUSTIFIED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the legality of the order passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jhajjar, and the judgment of the Collector, Rohtak, by which a suit filed by respondent No. 8 for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from making any encroachment on the alleged thoroughfare was transferred to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade for trial. The petitioners also challenged the order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Rohtak, by which the suit of the petitioners under S.13-B of the Act was dismissed and the application filed by the Gram Panchayat under S.7 of the Act was allowed and the petitioners were ordered to be ejected from the land in dispute. The petitioners also filed a suit for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner whatsoever in the legal and peaceful possession and ownership of the plaintiffs in the land in dispute and also to the effect that the order passed by the Gram Panchayat under S.21 of the Gram Panchayat Act is void and without jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that there was no conflict between the two Division Bench judgments of this Court in the Karnal Co-operative Farmers Society Limited V/s. Gram Panchayat and Digh Ram V/s. State of Haryana with regard to the interpretation of S.13-B as added by Haryana Act No. 34 of 1974 in the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act (18 of 1961). The court further held that S.13-B covers suits against Panchayat for exclusion of land from Shamilat-deh and that a suit for injunction against Panchayat is also covered. The court also held that S.13-B is not unconstitutional and that the absence of an appeal provision against the judgment of the Assistant Collector is not unconstitutional. The court also held that a suit for exclusion of land from Shamilat-deh, which was tried by the Civil Court, was rightly remanded to the Assistant Collector.
Issues: 1. Whether there is a conflict between the two Division Bench judgments of this Court in the Karnal Co-operative Farmers Society Limited V/s. Gram Panchayat and Digh Ram V/s. State of Haryana with regard to the interpretation of S.13-B as added by Haryana Act No. 34 of 1974 in the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act (18 of 1961)? 2. Whether S.13-B covers suits against Panchayat for exclusion of land from Shamilat-deh? 3. Whether a suit for injunction against Panchayat is also covered under S.13-B? 4. Whether S.13-B is unconstitutional? 5. Whether the absence of an appeal provision against the judgment of the Assistant Collector is unconstitutional? 6. Whether a suit for exclusion of land from Shamilat-deh, which was tried by the Civil Court, was rightly remanded to the Assistant Collector?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted S.13-B of the Act and held that it covers suits against Panchayat for exclusion of land from Shamilat-deh and that a suit for injunction against Panchayat is also covered. 2. The court held that S.13-B is not unconstitutional and that the absence of an appeal provision against the judgment of the Assistant Collector is not unconstitutional.
Final Decision: 1. The petition challenging the transfer of the suit from the Subordinate Judge to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade was allowed, and the order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jhajjar, and the judgment of the Collector, Rohtak, were set aside. 2. The petition challenging the dismissal of the suit under S.13-B of the Act and the order of ejectment was dismissed. 3. The appeal challenging the remand of the suit from the Civil Court to the Assistant Collector was dismissed.
PREM CHAND JAIN, J.
1. This judgement of ours would dispose of C.W.P. No. 8740 of 1976 (Munshi Ram etc. V/s. State of Haryana etc.), C.W.P. No. 5178 of 1978 (Diwan Singh etc. V/s. State of Haryana etc.) and S.A.O. No. 54 of 1977 (Teja etc. V/s. Jit Ram etc.) as common question of law arises in all these cases. It appears that at the time of motion hearing of the aforesaid cases, it was projected by the learned counsel for the petitioners/appellant that there was a conflict between the two Division Bench judgements of this Court in the Karnal Co-operative Farmers Society Limited V/s. Gram Panchayat 1976 Pun LJ 237, and Digh Ram V/s. State of Haryana 1977 Pun LJ 446, with regard to the interpretation of S.13-B as added by Haryana Act No. 34 of 1974 in the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act (18 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). As is evident from the order of the Bench in C.W.P. No. 8740 of 1976, dated 6th of April, 1977, a conflict was apparently found in the two aforesaid Division Bench judgements, with the result that the matter was referred to a larger Bench and that is how we are seized of the matter.
2. Before I advert to the merits of each case, I propose to deal with the alleged conflict as was tried to be brought out by the learned counsel for the petitioners/appellant at the time of hearing.
3. It was contended that in Karnal Co-operative Farmers Society s case, the view taken by the learned Judges of the Division Bench was that only such suits which had been instituted in the Civil Courts against the panchayat for exclusion of certain lands or other properties from Shamilat-deh under S.2(g) or on any of the grounds mentioned in S.4(3) of the Act alone could be transferred while in Digh Ram s case (to the decision of which I was a party), it has been held that S.13-B provides for all claims based on the ground of any land or other immovable property being excluded from Shamilat-deh. The relevant observations in Karnal Co-operative Farmers Society s case read as under :-
"A reading of this Section shows that the suits pending in Civil Court against the Panchayats, wherein relief has been claimed on the ground that the land be excluded from Shamilat-deh, shall be transferred to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. Emphasis has been laid by Mr. Anand Swaroop, on the words excluded and against the Panchayat, which I have underlined in the Section reproduced above. It is noteworthy that the suits which are contemplated to be transferred from the Civil Court, to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, must have two ingredients, namely (i) it should be for exclusion of the land from the Shamilat-deh, and (ii) it should be against the Panchayat. In case any suit does not contain the aforesaid ingredients, it cannot be transferred by the Civil Court to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. It is a well known principle of interpretation of statutes that where the grammatical construction is clear and manifest, that construction ought to prevail unless there is some strong reason to the contrary. In case the language of the statute is unambiguous, the Court must give effect to it, and it has no right to extend its operation in order to carry out the supposed intention of the Legislature. It is the duty of the Court to take the statute as it stands and to construe its words according to its natural significance. The intention of the Legislature is to be given effect as expressed in the words used in the statute. No outside consideration can be called in aid to find that intention. In the above Section, in my view, the words used by the Legislature, are clear and unambiguous. They cannot be interpreted in such a way that all the cases relating to the Shamilat-deh, pending in the Civil Court, shall be transferred to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. If the intention of the Legislature has been to that effect, the language of the Section would have been different. In my view, S.13-B covers only such suits which h
