R.S.A. No. 1792 of 2006 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1792 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.02.2009 Sukhbir Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Gram Panchayat of village Bhopani and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate, for respondents No. 3 to 13 and 18. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This order shall dispose of R.S.A. No. 1792 of 2006 and R.S.A. No. 2413 of 2006 titled Sukhbir Singh and others Vs. Gram Panchayat of village Bhopani and others. For brevity sake, facts are being taken from R.S.A. No. 1792 of 2006. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 12.6.2002 and 1.9.2005 passed by the learned Courts below vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellants for injunction R.S.A. No. 1792 of 2006 (O&M) -2- stands dismissed. The plaintiffs filed two suits, one for declaration and other for injunction. The suits were ordered to be consolidated. The learned Courts below took facts from the case titled Sukhbir Singh and others vs. Gram Panchayat, wherein it was pleaded that the total land measuring 108 kanal 16 marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Bhopani, Tehsil and District Faridabad was owned by shamlat deh of the said village and was possessed by the Bashnedgan Deh (inhabitants of village), including the plaintiffs as per jamabandi for the year 1990-91. The plaintiffs placed on record the list of proprietors as Schedule-A. It was claimed by the plaintiffs that being proprietors of the village, they had share in shamlat land and, thus, were owners in possession. The suit land was gora deh used for collecting cattle and other purposes of shamlat deh. It was pleaded that the defendant-gram panchayat had no right, title or interest in the suit land. The claim of defendants No. 2 to 19 qua possession of the land was denied being false and frivolous. The plaintiffs claimed that they were entitled to injunction restraining defendants No. 2 to 19 from taking possesson. The gram panchayat contested the suit by filing a separate written statement whereas remaining defendants were proceeded against ex parte. The defendant-gram panchayat challenged the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit besides challenging the cause of action of the plaintiffs to maintain the suit. It was also pleaded that plaintiff/appellants have not come with clean hands to the Court and concealed the material facts. Stand was taken by the defendant-gram R.S.A. No. 1792 of 2006 (O&M) -3- panchayat that the disputed land being shamlat deh vests in the gram panchayat under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, and that the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest in the suit land. The land was allotted by gram panchayat to the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes as per Government scheme, vide resolution No. 93 dated 8.8.1994, the defendants were said to be owners in possession till they continue to follow the conditions of allotment. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues: - "1. Whether the proprietors are owners in possession of suit land described in para No. 1 of the plaint? OPP 2. Whether the proprietors are entitled to restrain the defendant from taking possession of land bearing rect. No. 30, killa No. 20 or any part thereof? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether no legal notice required by the law was served on the defendant? OPD 6. Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit as per Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961? OPD 7. Relief." On appreciation of evidence brought on recrod, the learned Courts below recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the R.S.A. No. 1792 of 2006 (O&M) -4- plaintiff/appellants were not owners in possession of the suit land, as it vested in the gram panchayat. Issue No. 2 was also decided against the plaintiff/appellants. The learned lower appellate Court decided issue No. 6 by holding as under: - The question, which arises for determination, is as to whether the appellants and the other proprietors of the village whose names have shown in the list attached with the plaint is annexure A are the owners in possession of the suit land or the same vested in the Gram Panchayat? This fact can be proved from perusal of the copy of jamabandi for the year 1990-91 Ex.P-6 which shows that the name of Shamilat Deh Hassab Rasab Kabza Zameen has been mentioned in the column of ownership while the name of Makbooja Wasind Gaan Dehi has been mentioned in the column of possession and, therefore, it can be said that all the inhabitants of the village are in possession of the suit land in irrespective of the fact that they are the proprietors or non-proprietors of the village. Even, otherwise, the appellants have admitted the possession of the non-proprietors of the village as per the averments of the plaint. Taking this view of the matter, it can be said that the suit land vests in the Gram Panchayat i.e. Respondenet No.1 being the Shamlat Dehi under Section 4 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, though this land has been taken out from the share of the proprietors. The Gram Panchayat is also looking after the management of the suit land, in view of the fact that the same is being used for the common purposes of the villagers and, therefore, the appellants are the other co-sharers cannot be allowed to say that they are the owners of the R.S.A. No. 1792 of 2006 (O&M) -5- suit land which vests in the Gram Panchayat and, therefore, the Gram Panchayat is within its right to use the suit land in the manner it like. Admittedly, respondents No.2 to 19 are the members of scheduled caste and Backward Class who are financially weak, as they are not having their own accommodation to live. As per rule 3(2) (xvi) of the Act, the Gram Panchayat can lease out the land for the purposes of abadi to a family having insufficient housing accommodation or for the purpose of industrial project approved by the Government. It is clear that the Gram Panchayat is competent to deliver the possession of the suit land including the land comprised in Rect. No.30, Killa No.20 for the residential accommodation to any person or any family having insufficient housing accommodation. It is only due to this reason that respondent No.1 allotted the lands to respondents No.2 to 19 from rect. No.30 Killa No.20 of the suit land to the extent of 3 Marlas each for using the same for their residences as is clear from a perusal of the copies of allotment letters Ex.DW4/1 to Ex.DW4/17 duly proved by PW-4 Girraj Singh and, therefore, I am of the view that the action on the part of the Gram Panchayat in allotting the lands to the weaker sections of the society i.e. Respondents No.2 to 19 cannot be said to be illegal in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Bishamber Dayal Vs. State of Haryana & others, 1986(1) L.L.R. 658 where it was held that all rights, title and interest in Shamlat Dehi vests in Gram Panchayat who is entitled to use it in any manner subject to restrictions placed on it by Rule 3 of the Rules. It was further held that the Act and Rules empower the Gram Panchayat to convert a portion of street for anyone or more of the purposes given in Rule R.S.A. No. 1792 of 2006 (O&M) -6- 3(2) of the Rules. Similar observations were also made by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High court in Gram Panchayat vs. Har Narain 1989(2) L.L.R. 312. The ratio of the above rulings is fully applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, where the suit land vested in the Gram Panchayat who has rightly allotted the portion of the suit land out of Rect. No.30 Killa No.20 to the extent of 3 marlas each to respondents No.2 to 19 over which the appellants cannot agitate because they have no concern with the suit land in any manner. The learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record while holding that the plaintiffs and the other proprietors are not the owners in possession of the suit land who are, therefore, not entitled to the relief of injunction and, therefore, the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court on issues No.1 and 2 are hereby affirmed. Admittedly, the suit land vests in the Gram Panchayat who has rightly allotted the portion of the suit land to respondent No.2 to 19 being the members of the Schedule Caste and Backward Classes. Admittedly, the suit land is being used by the inhabitants of the village as the same is Shamlat Deh property and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, it was held in Mehar Singh & others vs. Sardara Singh and others, 1987(1) AILLR 357 that under Section of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 where the land is claimed to be Shamlat Deh then the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. It was further held in Gram Panchayat Nurpur vs. State of Punjab & others 1997(1) RCR 328 that the Director Consolidation has no authority to go into the question as to whether the land R.S.A. No. 1792 of 2006 (O&M) -7- in dispute was Shamlat Deh or not. The question can only be decided by the authorities under Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act. Taking this view of the matter, where the suit land vests in the Gram Panchayat who has already allotted some portion fo the suit land to the prior persons i.e. Respondents No.2 to 19 it can be said that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit and, therefore, the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court on issue No.6 are also affirmed and consequently the judgment and decree dated 12.06.2002 passed by the learned Trial Court is hereby affirmed." The learned counsel for the appellants raised the following substantial question of law: - "Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the approach of the learned lower appellate Court that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in the matter, is to be held to be perverse thus, not sustainable in law?" In support of the substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the appellants referred to Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as applicable to Haryana, which reads as under: - "13. Bar of Jurisdiction in Civil Court. - No civil court 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 shamlat deh vested or deemed to have been vested in a Panchayat under this Act; or (b) to question the legality of any action taken R.S.A. No. 1792 of 2006 (O&M) -8- 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." The learned counsel for the appellants contends that Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as the plaintiff/appellants had not challenged the status of land to be not shamlat deh, but merely challenged the right of gram panchayat to transfer the land by way of sale in favour of defendants No. 2 to 19. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted. Once the appellants have not disputed the ownership of the gram panchayat, their locus to challenge the transfer is restricted only to the limited extent to see that there was no violation of statutory rules or provisions of the Act with regard to the disposal. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that panchayat has no authority or jurisdiction to transfer the land, as it could only lease out the said land to landless persons, cannot be sustained. The statutory rules called "The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1964" provides as under: - "2. The Panchayat may make use of the land in shamlat deh vested in it under the Act, either itself or through another, for any one or more of the following purposes: - xxxxx (xxvi) Any other kindred common purpose with the approval of the Panchayat Samitis; R.S.A. No. 1792 of 2006 (O&M) -9- The Rule 10 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules provides as under: - "(1) The publicity to lease auction programme shall be given fifteen days before the date of auction, by specifying the description of land the date, time and place fixed for auction of lease: - (a) through any local vernacular newspaper and where the auction of stone quarries, bajri or other minor mineral etc. is to be held, also through an English newspaper. (b) by pasting a copy of auction notice on outer door of the panchayat ghar, village patwar khanna office of Panchayat Samiti and at other some conspicuous places of shamilat deh or of the estate in which the shamilat deh is situated, and (c) by beat of drum within the Sabha area. (2) The terms and conditions of auction shall be announced at the time of auction. (11) (i) The auction of lease of any land in shamilat deh vested in the Panchayat shall be conducted in the presence, and under the supervision of teh Block Development and Panchayat Officer, and in case of his inability an Extension officer of the Block. (ii) A copy of every auction notice shall be sent to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer concerned fifteen days before the date of auction. (iii) The Block Development and Panchayat R.S.A. No. 1792 of 2006 (O&M) -10- officer or the Extension Officer, as the case may be, shall present himself at every auction in repsect of which a notice is sent to him under clause (ii)." Thus, it would be seen that the exercise of powers by gram panchayat was not in violation of the statutory rules or the provisions of the Act. The claim to ownership could not be challenged in Civil Court in view of bar under Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act. The findings of the learned Courts below on issue No. 6 cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the provisions of law. The substantial question of law is answered against the plaintiff/appellants. No merit. Dismissed in limine. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge February 17, 2009 R.S.