(122) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 23.03.2026 RAM DASS AND ANOTHER ...Petitioners Vs.

MANGAL SINGH AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioners.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral)

1. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 29.09.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mukerian, whereby the application filed under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking return of the plaint, was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the respondents/plaintiffs instituted a suit seeking a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants/petitioners to remove the alleged encroachment from a village common passage, which has been fully described and detailed in the head note of the plaint. They further sought a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from causing any further obstruction in the remaining portion of the passage. It was asserted that the suit property is a gair mumkin passage, reserved for the common use and enjoyment of the villagers. The petitioners/defendants appeared and contested the suit by filing a written statement. Thereafter, they moved an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking return of the plaint on the ground that the Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It was contended that the suit property constitutes a public passage forming part of shamlat deh land, owned by mustarka malkaan hasad rasad khewat, and thus falls within the ambit of the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. It was further pleaded that, in view of Section 13-B of the said Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly barred. Upon consideration of the matter and after hearing the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) dismissed the application vide the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

3. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the paper-book carefully.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the suit property in question constitutes shamlat deh land, and therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in view of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. It is submitted that, in light of the statutory bar, the dispute relating to the nature and ownership of the land cannot be adjudicated by the Civil Court, and the appropriate forum for determination of such issues lies with the competent authority under the Act, i.e., the Commissioner exercising jurisdiction under the relevant provisions.

5. In support of the aforesaid contention, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of this Court in Bhim Singh v. Gram Panchayat of Village Kharkheri, 1983 A.I.R. (Punjab) 415, wherein it has been held that, ‘as earlier observed under Section 13 of the Act, a Civil Court has been debarred from not only entertaining a suit but also from adjudicating upon any question relating to the shamlat nature of the land. In case the appellate Court, which is a civil court is allowed to determine the controversy one way of the other, then it would be permitting the civil court to determine and adjudicate upon a matter on which it has no jurisdiction. This is not legally permissible’.

6. In the present case, the respondents/plaintiffs do not dispute that the suit property forms part of shamlat deh land, nor do they contend that it has not been reserved for the common use of the villagers. Rather, their specific case is that the suit property is a gair mumkin passage reserved for the common use and enjoyment of the residents of the village, and that the defendants/petitioners have caused obstruction and encroachment over the said passage. On the other hand, the petitioners/defendants, while filing their written statement, ha