R.S.A.No. 3058 of 1997 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 3058 of 1997 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.1.2011 Gram Panchayat Chawinda Kalan ......Appellant Versus Gurkirat Singh and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.J.S.Gill, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Abhinabh Jain, Advocate for Mr. B.R.Mahajan, Advocate, for respondents **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs-respondents had filed a suit for declaration that the suit land be declared to be owned by Jumla Mushtarka Malkan and the plaintiffs be declared as co-sharers in possession. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, was that the suit land was owned by Jumla Mushtarka Malkan of village Chawinda Kalan. The plaintiffs were in actual physical possession of the suit land R.S.A.No. 3058 of 1997 (O&M) 2 being co-sharers. Defendant-Gram Panchayat had no concern with the suit land. However, the defendant-Gram Panchayat was threatening to lease out the land and dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land forcibly. Defendant-Gram Panchayat, in its written statement, denied that the suit land was owned by Jumla Mushtarka Malkan. It was averred that the suit land was owned and managed by the Gram Panchayat. The plaintiffs were tenants under the Gram Panchayat. The suit land was given on lease to the plaintiffs for one year i.e. for 1994-95. After the expiry of lease period, plaintiffs were liable to hand over the vacant possession of the suit land to the Gram Panchayat. The plaintiffs had earlier filed a suit and had claimed themselves as tenants under the Gram Panchayat since the year 1985 and hence in view of their admission, the plaintiffs were liable to be treated as tenants under the Gram Panchayat. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the suit land is owned by Jumla Mushtarka Malkan of village Chawinda Kalan? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land as co-sharers? OPP 3. Whether the jurisdiction of civil court is barred? OPD 4.Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs have got no locus standi and R.S.A.No. 3058 of 1997 (O&M) 3 cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their own act and conduct from filing the suit? OPD 7. Relief. Vide judgment and decree dated 14.6.1996, trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant- Gram Panchayat preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 10.6.1997. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant-Gram Panchayat. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that once the plaintiffs had admitted that they were tenants under the Gram Panchayat, they could not withdraw the said admission. The suit land was being leased out by the Gram Panchayat from time to time. Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Sant Ram and another vs. Kulwant Singh and others, 2009 (3) CCC 0633, wherein, in para 16, it was held as under:- “It is well established principle of law that an admission is the best piece of evidence. An admission cannot be treated to be conclusive and a party making an admission can explain the same. However, there is an exception to the aforesaid rule. Where an admission of a party R.S.A.No. 3058 of 1997 (O&M) 4 amounts to an estoppel, it shall be conclusive and binding upon him. The evaluation of weightage to be given to an admission shall depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.” Learned counsel has further placed reliance on Inder Singh vs. State of Punjab 1987 PLJ 614, wherein, it was held as under:- “3. The Collector and the Appellate Authority disallowed the claim of the petitioner herein inter alia on the ground that the petitioner had taken the land on lease from the panchayat and he could not now turn round to challenge the title of the Gram Panchayat and stop it from re-auctioning the land in question. 4. The petitioner got into possession of the land in dispute as a successful bidder in the auction and by virtue of the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the status of the Gram Panchayat in regard to its right to possess it and auction it to whomsoever it likes. Since the petitioner had taken the possession of the land from the Gram Panchayat the petitioner had to given back the possession to the Gram Panchayat R.S.A.No. 3058 of 1997 (O&M) 5 Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the suit land was owned by khewatdar of the village. The Gram Panchayat had no concern with the suit land. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. As per Ex.P-1, the suit land is described in the column of the ownership as Jumla Mushtarka Malkan hasab rasad kabja khewatdar. In the column of cultivation, it has been described that khud kashat Maqbuja Gram Panchayat Farm. The suit land measures 57 kanals 4 marlas. As per jamabandi Ex. P-5, plaintiffs have land in village Chawinda Kalan. Thus, as per the revenue record, the land is owned by the khewatdar. The suit land does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. The plea of the defendant that the plaintiffs had themselves admitted in the earlier suit that they were tenants under the Gram Panchayat does not advance the case of the Gram Panchayat. Presumption of correctness is attached to the entries in the jamabandi wherein the land has been described to be owned by khewatdar. The admission, if any, by the plaintiffs is meaningless in view of the revenue record. Admittedly, the suit property is not shamlat deh and hence, the Gram Panchayat being not the owner of the suit land could not lease out the same to anybody. Since the land is not owned by the gram panchayat, it is to be used by the members of the R.S.A.No. 3058 of 1997 (O&M) 6 village proprietary body. In these circumstances, learned Courts below rightly held that the suit land was owned by Jumla Mushtarka Malkan. Admittedly, the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land. The question that requires consideration is as to whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land as co-sharers being members of village proprietary body. Since the plaintiffs also own land in the village it shows that they are the proprietors of the village. Moreover, there is no evidence to the contrary. Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Land's Act reads as under:- “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 c) in respect of any matter which the Commissioner or the Collector is empowered by or under this Act to determine.” However, the said provision fails to advance the case of R.S.A.No. 3058 of 1997 (O&M) 7 the appellant as in the present case, the suit property is admittedly not shamlat deh. Hence, the jurisdiction of the civil court in the present case was not barred. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 20, 2011 anita