The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdictional bar under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, which explicitly prohibits the Civil Court from entertaining disputes regarding the vesting of land in the Gram Panchayat.

Rajiv Narain Raina, J.

The eleven co-plaintiffs brought Civil Suit No. 622 of 25th April, 2006 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ambala City for permanent injunction against the defendant Gram Panchayat of village Kurbanpur, Tehsil and District Ambala for restraining the defendant from leasing out, alienating or dealing with the land falling in village Kurbanpur and in a portion of Hadbast No. 259 as described in the plaint.

2. The case set up by the plaintiffs was that the suit land is joint holding of the plaintiffs and other inhabitants of the village. As per the Nehri entries of the year 1992, the Government of Haryana ordered the land in question to be mutated by the revenue officers in the name of Gram Panchayat Kurbanpur. The order of the Government which required mutation of the suit land to be recorded in the name of Gram Panchayat was challenged by a large number of villagers in the High Court which culminated in the Supreme Court and the order of the Government was set aside reverting the ownership to the joint holding. These proceedings arose out ofCWP No. 5877 of 1992 in case titled Jai Singh etc. v. State of Haryana. In implementation of the orders of the Supreme Court, Government of Haryana in the Department of Revenue passed a fresh order on 6th September, 2005 restoring the ownership to its original status in compliance with court directives. Resultantly, the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Ambala sanctioned mutation in the name of the original joint khata holders and thereby the original status of the land in dispute was restored.

3. In response to the suit, Gram Panchayat appeared and filed a written statement and contested the case taking preliminary objections. On merits, Gram Panchayat submitted that the suit land belongs to Gram Panchayat and the Gram Panchayat is not in possession though it is in control of its management and had been leasing out the suit land for the benefit of the village inhabitants for the last more than 40 years to the knowledge of all the assembly. The plaintiffs themselves have participated in the auctions and had been taking the suit land on lease on year to year basis and thus, cannot dispute the title of the Gram Panchayat. It was urged that the mutation does not confer any title in the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs never came into possession of the land through proper channel and they have no right or title to the suit property. The Gram Panchayat was not privy to the sanction of the mutation in the name of the joint khata holders. If the plaintiffs nursed a grudge against the Gram Panchayat, it was open to them to file a suit for possession as provided by law. However, neither could they take forcible possession of the land nor the Gram Panchayat can be restrained from carrying out its public work on the suit land for the benefit of the village community.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : -

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

2. Whether the suit land is joint holding of plaintiffs as alleged? OPP.

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

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

5A. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD (This additional issue has been framed vide order dated 13.09.2012).

6. Relief.

5. Both sides led both oral and documentary evidence in support of their cases.

6. Issues No. 1, 2, 3 & 5(A) were found interlinked and were taken up together by the learned trial Court. The plaintiffs contended that the suit land was never reserved for common purposes and, therefore, the Gram Panchayat could not exclusively claim it. The Gram Panchayat argued that the suit was not maintainable and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, as in essence, the plaintiffs seek a declaration th