RSA No. 1779 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 1779 of 2011 Date of decision: 25.04.2011 Bachan Singh and another .....Appellants Versus Mohinder and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.L.Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, was that they were in peaceful possession of the suit property as owners. Defendants had encroached upon some portion of the suit land on 26.4.2001 marked with letters `ABCD' in the site plan. Defendants, in their written statement, denied the contentions in the plaint. It was averred that the plaintiffs were neither owners nor in possession of the suit land. Defendant No.1 had raised construction over some portion of the suit land and was residing in the said residential house without any interference. RSA No. 1779 of 2011 2 On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- "1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the land in questions, the details of which are mentioned in the head note of plaint?OPP 2.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief as claimed for in view of the grounds taken in the plaint?OPP 3.Whether suit of plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 4.Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 5.Whether the plaintiffs are guilty of suppressing true and material facts from the knowledge of the Court?OPD 6.Relief." The Civil Judge (Senior Division) vide judgment and decree dated 27.4.2010 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 18.1.2011 by the Additional District Judge. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. The case of the plaintiffs was that they were in possession of the suit property as owners. Admittedly, as per the revenue record, the Gram Panchayat has been described as owner of the suit property. The suit property has been described as shamlat deh. Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, RSA No. 1779 of 2011 3 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.]” Since the suit property is owned by Gram Panchayat and has been described as shamlat deh, the suit filed by the plaintiffs claiming themselves to be owners of the suit property was not maintainable. Moreover, the plaintiffs had not impleaded the Gram Panchayat as a party to the suit. Although no relief was claimed against the Gram Panchayat but the Gram Panchayat was a necessary party as the suit property was owned by the Gram Panchayat. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge April 25, 2011 arya