IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2334 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 21st July, 2011 Madan Singh and others … Appellants Versus Gram Panchayat Bhandoli … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. The suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs against Gram Panchayat Bhandoli, Tehsil Hodal, District Faridabad for declaration that they being proprietors of the village have a share in the shamlat land and therefore, they are owners in possession thereof, was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved against the same, appellants-plaintiffs filed an appeal. The same was also dismissed. Hence, the present regular second appeal. The trial Court vide its impugned judgment dated 15th June, 2006 held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the question involved in the case regarding the nature of land in dispute. This finding was affirmed by the lower appellate Court. Both the Courts below inter-alia held that jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’). After giving Regular Second Appeal No.2334 of 2009 (O&M) due attention to the controversy raised, both the Courts below held that since the Gram Panchayat has initiated the proceedings under Section 7 of the Act and the same are pending before the Assistant Collector after the Commissioner had remanded the case, therefore, this matter can only be decided by the authority under the Act. Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants-plaintiffs, has stated that the mutation of the ownership was sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat on the basis of Act No.9 of 1992, whereas the Assistant Collector, vide order dated 13th April, 1978 has held that the land does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. Since the said order has attained finality, therefore, the mutation sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat will not clothe the Panchayat with the title of the suit property. The trial Court noticed that in the year 1976, a case titled as ‘SEPO v. Ramcharan’ qua the land in dispute was filed under Section 7 of the Act for ejectment of father of the plaintiffs from the land in question. The said petition was dismissed by Assistant Collector (1st Grade), Palwal vide its order dated 13th April, 1978. Thereafter, the appellants-plaintiffs had filed a case against respondent-defendant Gram Panchayat Bhandoli in the Court of Assistant Collector (1st Grade), Hodal for declaration that they are owners in possession of the land in dispute. That petition was dismissed by the Assistant Collector (1st Grade), Hodal vide his order dated 26th March, 1996 on the ground that the same was time barred. No appeal was filed by the appellants-plaintiffs against that order. The trial Court has given history of litigation between the parties as under: “24. Defendant Gram Panchayat also filed ejectment petition under Section 7 of the Act of 1961 2 Regular Second Appeal No.2334 of 2009 (O&M) against present plaintiffs for their ejectment from the land in dispute, bearing case No.60. Same was dismissed by A.C. 1st Grade Hodal vide order dated 9.10.2001, which is Ex.P12 on the file. Defendant G.P. went in appeal against order dated 9.10.2001 which was allowed by Deputy Collector, Faridabad vide his order dated 26.09.2002 Ex.DW1/1 and possession of plaintiffs was held to be illegal. Against order dt. 26.09.2002 present plaintiffs went in revision before Commissioner Gurgaon. Vide order dated 22.07.2005 revision petition was disposed of with the observation that to decide the controversy between the parties, first it is to be decided whether land in dispute was reserved for common purposes and was given on lease by the Panchayat. With these observations case was remanded back to A.C. 1st Grade, Hodal with the directions to decide the matter in view of observations made in the revision petition. Thus, case is also pending before revenue authority regarding the matter which is in dispute in the present case.” The only question which arises for consideration of this Court is as to whether the suit land vests with the Gram Panchayat or not. This question can only be determined by an authority under the Act as the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 13 of the Act. Counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs has placed reliance upon Act No.9 of 1992 whereby mutation of the ownership was sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat. Learned counsel has further relied upon ‘Jai Singh and others v. State of Haryana’ 2003(1) PLJ 429 to contend that in case the mutation has been sanctioned because of the dint of Act No.9 of 1992 in favour of the Gram Panchayat, the said mutation shall stand cancelled or set aside. However, in Jai Singh’s case (supra), a liberty was granted to the Gram Panchayat to file an application for 3 Regular Second Appeal No.2334 of 2009 (O&M) eviction under Section 7 or title suit under Section 13-A of the Act as the case may be. Therefore, in terms of the judgment rendered in Jai Singh’s case (supra), application filed by the Gram Panchayat under Section 7 of the Act is pending for consideration. All questions based upon the previous order dated 13th April, 1978 or such other questions consequent to the enactment of Act No.9 of 1992 are required to be decided by the authorities under the Act alone. Such is the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in ‘Chhankar Singh v. Joint Development Commissioner and others’ 1998(2) PLJ 196, that the Collector has no jurisdiction for correction of the entries in the revenue record. In the suit the appellants-plaintiffs are claiming that the land vests in them because the same is in their possession. This question can only be examined by an authority under the Act. The Courts below have rightly held that the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred. Thus, taking totality of circumstances into consideration this Court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for its consideration. Hence, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE July 21, 2011 rps 4