Civil courts have no jurisdiction to entertain suits involving disputes over the ownership of land that is shamilat deh, as defined in the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.

R.L. Anand, J. - Unsuccessful plaintiffs S/Shri Gurdev Singh and seven others, have filed a suit against the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat Marwa, Rounki Ram and Mohinder Singh, defendants No. 1 to 3, for declaration to the effect that they are the owners and in possession of the abadi land mentioned at letters A and B of the Head Note of the plaint with a prayer to grant relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land.

2. The case set up by the plaintiffs in the trial Court was that they are the co-owners and in joint possession of the suit property, i.e., residential house shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the plaint, whereas, they purchased the suit property bearing Khasra Number 59//42 (0-11) from defendant No. 3, Shri Mohinder Singh through un-registered sale-deed dated 11.7.1972 but in the revenue record, still exists the name of defendant No. 3. Those entries are liable to be corrected. The plaintiffs further alleged that the trees are standing on the suit land which is in their exclusive possession and defendants have no right, title or interest over the property and they are unnecessarily interfering in their possession. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had threatened the plaintiffs to dispossess them from the suit land. Earlier also, the defendants threatened the plaintiffs to dispossess them and as a result of that plaintiffs had to file a suit for injunction. However, that suit was withdrawn on the verbal promise given by the defendants, yet another suit was filed by plaintiff No. 2 when defendant No. 1 again tried to dispossess him. Now the defendants No. 1 and 2 had collected the material near the suit property with the help of local police and are threatening to construct pucca street/drain by the side of the suit property without any right whatsoever. If the defendants succeeded in their mission the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money.

3. Notice of the suit was given to the defendants. Defendant No. 1 contested the suit only in the trial Court. Defendants No. 2 and 3 were proceeded ex parte. Defendant No. 1 alleged in the written statement that suit property is a shamlat deh which comes under the definition of Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as the Act) and the same is owned by the Gram Panchayat. The suit property is only used by the people of the village for performing marriage and for parking carts and trolleys etc. and there is also a passage on one side of the suit property and now the plaintiffs want to encroach upon the shamlat deh by alleging their houses and courtyard to which they have no right to do so. The defendant No. 1 also denied that the plaintiffs are owners of the Khasra No. 59, killa No. 42, (0-11) as having been purchased through unregistered deeds dated 11.7.72. Defendant No. 1 also alleged that even if any such un-registered sale deed is proved, the same is forged and false document and defendant No. 3 had no right to execute the same in favour of the plaintiffs as he was not the owner of the property. The defendant admitted that earlier two civil suits for permanent injunction were filed but those were dismissed. Subsequent plea was taken by defendant No. 1 that the suit is barred under Section 13 of the Act and that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit.

4. The plaintiffs filed rejoinder to the written statement of defendant No. 1, in which they have controverted the stand taken by the defendant No. 1 and have reiterated their own case.

From the pleadings of the parties the trial court framed the following issues :-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction prayed for ? OPP

2. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit ? OPP

3. Relief.

The parties led oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their case.

Both the issues were