http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 5

PETITIONER:

RAM SINGH & ORS.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

GRAM PANCHAYAT MEHAL KALAN & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT22/09/1986

BENCH:

VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)

BENCH:

VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)

KHALID, V. (J)

CITATION:

1986 AIR 2197 1986 SCC (4) 364

JT 1986 497 1986 SCALE (2)472

ACT:

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961: ss.

11-13 Suit against Panchayat seeking declaration and

possession of shamlat deh-Correctness of entries in revenue

records-Whether Civil Court has jurisdiction.

Civil Procedure Code, O.I., R. 8-Civil Suit for

declaration/possession of Shamlat deh lands-Not

maintainable.

HEADNOTE:

Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands

(Regulation) Act, 1961 conferred jurisdiction on the

Collector to decide cases of persons claiming right, title

or interest in any land vested or deemed to have been vested

in a Panchayat, or claiming that any land has not so vested

in a Panchayat and against such order an appeal was provided

to the Commissioner. Under s. 12 every order of the

Collector or Commissioner was final and such order could not

be called in question in any Court by way of appeal or

revision or in any original suit, application or execution

proceedings. Section 13 of the Act provided that no civil

court shall have jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate

upon any question whether any property or any right to or

interest in any property is or is not shamlat deh vested or

deemed to have been vested in a Panchayat under the Act.

The petitioners instituted a civil suit under O. 1, r.

8 of the Code of Civil Procedure for a declaration that they

were the owners in possession of the suit land, that the

Gram Panchayat had no sort of right in the suit land, that

the suit land had been wrongly shown as belonging to the

Panchayat by entries made in the revenue records which were

not binding on the plaintiffs, and for an injunction

restraining the Panchayat from interfering with their

possession. The respondent-Panchayat contended in its

written statement that the civil court had no jurisdiction

to try the suit by virtue of the provisions of s. 13 of the

Act. The trial court, however held that since the question

involved in the suit was

832

simply one of title to the suit land and it was not

necessary to decide whether the suit land was shamlat deh or

not and whether the land had validly vested in the Panchayat

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 5

or not being shamlat deh, it had jurisdiction to try the

suit.

Allowing the revision petition of the Panchayat the

High Court held that the suit was not maintainable before

the Civil Court since the issues involved in it were not

triable by such court by virtue of s. 11 read with s. 13 of

the Act.

Dismissing the appeal by special leave, the Court,

^

HELD: The High Court was right in holding that the suit

was not maintainable before the civil court. The plaintiffs

who claimed to be the owners of the suit land had avoided to

seek a declaration that the suit land was not shamlat deh.

They cannot by drawing their plaint cleverly be not claiming

a declaration that the land in question was not shamlat deh

confer jurisdiction on the civil court when by virtue of the

Act the jurisdiction of civil court to try such suits had

been taken away. The suit had been filed against the

Panchayat and the Panchayat had raised the plea that the

suit land was a part of the shamlat deh and that the

plaintiffs had no right or title to it. The civil court

cannot make a declaration in favour of the plaintiffs

without deciding the question whether the property in

question was shamlat deh or not and whether it belonged to

the Panchayat or not. That question has to be decided by the

Coll