RSA No. 2829 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2829 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: November , 2009 Udey Singh ...........Appellant Versus Gram Panchayat Nangal Jat ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent ** Sabina, J. Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction . The suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Nuh vide judgment and decree dated 31.1.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant -Gram Panchayat preferred an appeal and the same was allowed and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the Additional District Judge Nuh vide judgment and decree dated 13.6.2008.. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff-Udey Singh. The facts of the case, as noticed by the Additional District Judge in paras 2 to 4 of its judgment, read as under:- “ 2. Brief facts of the present case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction on the allegations that the plaintiff is owner in possession of a residential house marked by letters ABCDEFGHIJ as shown in site plan situated in village Nangal Jat RSA No. 2829 of 2008 (O&M) 2 Tehsil Hathin. This house is ancestral property of the plaintiff. The defendant has no right, title or interest in this house. The sarpanch of the defendant panchayat being inimical towards the plaintiff wants to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and to dispossess the plaintiff from the house i.e. suit property illegally and forcibly by way of demolishing it. The plaintiff asked the defendant several times to admit his claim but the defendant refused to accede to his request. Hence, this suit. 3. On notice, initially, the defendant put in appearance and when on 29.11.06 none appeared on behalf of defendant, defendant gram panchayat was proceeded against ex-parte. 4. The learned trial Court after recording exparte evidence and hearing the arguments, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 5. Feeling dis-satisfied with the findings recorded by the learned lower court, the appellant/defendant has preferred the present appeal.” After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be allowed. The substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court is that `whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the present case is barred'. Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming that he was owner in possession of the suit property and the Gram Panchayat had no concern with the suit land. The suit property had never been used for common purposes. Hence, the defendant could not dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. Plaintiff, in order to prove his case, RSA No. 2829 of 2008 (O&M) 3 appeared in the witness box as PW1 and examined PW2-Chet Ram. Plaintiff as also proved on record the site plan Exhibit PX, as per which, in the suit property there is a constructed house of the plaintiff. On the western side of the constructed house, there is a land of the plaintiff and on the northern and eastern side of the constructed house, there gait of the plaintiff. Plaintiff has merely filed a suit for permanent injunction that the defendant be restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession. Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 reads as under:- “[13.Bar of jurisdiction in Civil Courts.- No civil courts shall have jurisdiction-- (a) to entertain or adjudicate upon any question, whether any property or any right to or interest in any property is or is not shamilat deh vested or deemed to have been vested in a Panchayat under this Act; or (b) to question the legality of any action taken by the Commissioner or the Collector or the Panchayat, under this Act;or © in respect of any matter which the Commissioner or the Collector is empowered by or under this Act to determine.]” Thus, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred where the question involved is as to whether the property in dispute is shamlat deh or not and the Civil Court cannot decide as to whether any right, title or interest in the said property vests or does not vests in the Gram Panchayat. The present case is a simple suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has pleaded that he was in possession of the suit RSA No. 2829 of 2008 (O&M) 4 property. The question of title qua the suit property is not to be decided in a suit for permanent injunction. From the ex-parte evidence led by the plaintiff, it stands established that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. Plaintiff has constructed his house in the suit property. In these circumstances, the plaintiff was entitled for a decree of permanent injunction. The defendant cannot dispossess the plaintiff except in due course of law. The learned Additional District Judge had erred in allowing the appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat as the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the present case was not barred. The substantial question of law stands answered accordingly. Hence, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 13.6.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, are set aside. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dated 31.1.2008 are upheld. ( Sabina ) Judge November 25 , 2009 arya RSA No. 2829 of 2008 (O&M) 5