IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2820 of 2025 Date of Decision:02.09.2025 Amit and others ... Applicants/Appellants Versus Bimla and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Ishnoor Singh, Advocate for the applicants-appellants.

***

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

1. This order will dispose of an application under Section 114 CPC read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC seeking review of the judgment dated

21.08.2025 passed by this Court in the instant regular second appeal.

2. The applicants-appellants seek review of the order dated 21.08.2025 on the ground that this Court has erred in holding that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not barred by observing that where the dispute is between private parties, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not ousted. It is argued that the property in dispute forms part of Shamlat Deh and, therefore, in view of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is excluded irrespective of whether the lis was between the private parties. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Samar v. Roshan Lal in RSA No.2412 of 2018 decided on 04.07.2022.

3. The review applicants further argues that Gram Panchayat was impleaded as defendant No.8 in the suit and the bone of contention was encroachment upon a gali, which admittedly was carrying a character of shamlat deh, for which eviction proceedings under Section 7 of the 1961 Act are already pending, and thus, in view of the judgment passed in Samar’s case (supra), the jurisdiction of Civil Court was ousted.

4. Heard.

5. The argument raised by learned counsel for the review applicants that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is excluded where the dispute is with regard to the shamlat deh, as per the provisions of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961 irrespective of the fact that the dispute is raised by a private party against the Gram Panchayat or a private party, is wholly misdirected and misconceived. The reliance on Samar v. Roshan Lal is totally misplaced, as in the said case, the plaintiff alleged the disputed property to be a part of shamlat deh; whereas it was denied by defendant No.1 as well as defendant No.2, which was Gram Panchayat of the village.

6. A careful reading of Section 13 of the Act of 1961 makes it crystal clear that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred where the character of the property as shamlat deh is disputed, meaning thereby, where one party claims that the property is shamlat deh and other party disputes, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court stands excluded. The lis before this Court in the instant regular second appeal is where the plaintiffs admitted the character of the property as shamlat deh and the defendant No.8, Gram Panchayat also corroborated the said fact. There was no dispute raised by either of the parties with respect to character of the property as shmalat deh and the whole case was based upon the fact that the defendants No.1 to 7 had encroached upon the gali, being vested with the Gram Panchayat and in this background, sought permanent and mandatory injunction qua said encroachment only, thus, has rightly decreed by both the Courts below.

7. The law is well-settled that review jurisdiction is confined to correction of an error apparent on the face of record and cannot be exercised to substitute a new decision in place of one already rendered. This Court finds no error apparent on the face of record in the order dated 21.08.2025 passed by this Court, sought to be reviewed by the applicants-appellants.

8. In view of the above, the review petition is dismissed, being devoid of merit.

(AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL)

JUDGE September 02, 2025 Pankaj*

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No