The main legal point established in the judgment is that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit under the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, as the orders passed by the revenue authorities were final and not subject to appeal or revision in any court.

R.L. Anand, J. (Oral) - Unsuccessful plaintiff Nahar Singh has filed the present appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.10.1999 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Gurgaon, who dismissed the appeal of the appellant by affirming the judgment and decree dated 18.12.1998 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Nuh, vide which the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

2. Plaintiff Nahar Singh and others filed the suit in representative capacity alleging that they are owners in possession of the suit land mentioned in para No. 2 of the plaint. Defendant No. 1 Gram Panchayat of village Atta without any notice to the plaintiffs illegally got sanctioned mutation No. 464 dated 14.1.1955 in respect of the suit land on the basis of letter No. 1171 issued by defendants No. 2 and 3. On the basis of said mutation defendant No. 1 filed an ejectment petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act against the plaintiff and the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Nuh vide order dated 12.2.1997 ejected the plaintiffs from the suit land. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff before the Collector was dismissed on 16.6.1997 and the revision preferred before the Commissioner was also dismissed on 6.10.1997. The plaintiff alleged that all the orders passed by the said authorities are illegal, invalid, without jurisdiction and against the mandatory provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act and the entries in the revenue record in favour of defendant No. 2 are also fictitious. It is further alleged that on the basis of said void orders, defendant No. 1 is bent upon to take the possession of the suit land. The plaintiffs have prayed for a decree of injunction to the effect that they are owners in possession of the suit land and that the defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit land and the orders dated 12.2.1997, 16.6.1997 and 6.10.1997 passed by the revenue authorities against the plaintiffs are null and void and without jurisdiction.

3. The notice of the suit was given to the defendants. The suit was contested by defendant No. 1, which took preliminary objections that the suit is not maintainable; that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred; that the plaintiff have no locus standi to file the present suit; that it is beyond limitation and that it is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, the stand of defendant No. 1 was that the plaintiffs are not entitled to file the present suit in the representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. because they are neither the Bishwedars nor have any right, title or interest in the suit land. The proceedings with the revenue Courts were admitted and it was admitted that the possession of the suit land was delivered to the Gram Panchayat vide Rapat No. 341 dated 26.4.1997. The land was further leased out in favour or Rattan Singh by the Gram Panchayat. The mutation entered in favour of defendant No. 1 is correct and the orders passed by the revenue authorities are also in accordance with law.

4. The plaintiffs filed re-joinder to the written statement in which they reiterated the allegations made in the plaint by denying those of the written statement and from the pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed the following issues :-

1. Whether the order dated 12.2.1997 passed by A.C. Ist Grade, Nuh and the order dated 16.6.1997 passed by the Commissioner are illegal, without jurisdiction as alleged ? OPP

2. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit, as alleged ? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their own act, conduct, acquiesences and laches as alleged ? OPD

4. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is time barred as alleged ? OPD

5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties as alleged ? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus-standi for filing the present suit as alleged ? OPD

7. Reli