C.R. No. 4920 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 4920 of 2009 Date of Decision: November 26, 2009 Chhajju Ram and others …..Petitioners Vs. Gram Panchayat, Danipur …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate for the petitioners. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Plaintiffs claim themselves to be owners in possession of suit land being proprietors of Village Danipur. Petitioners had sought a declaration that Gram Panchayat of the Village has got no right, title or interest in the property. The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed on September 1, 2003 by Civil Judge, (Junior Division), inter-alia holding that the jurisdiction of Civil Court was barred under Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as C.R. No. 4920 of 2009 [2] ‘the Act’), and appeal filed by the plaintiffs in the year 2009 after a gap of six years was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court being barred by time. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the first appeal, the present civil revision has been filed. Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the jurisdiction of the civil Court being barred under statute, the trial Court should have returned the plaint to the plaintiffs for presenting before the Collector exercising jurisdiction under the Act. The principle of estopple seems to bar the petitioners to raise the said plea as they by their own conduct had made the other party to believe that civil Court had jurisdiction. After having been non-suited on legal point, now the plaintiffs seek to take up the plea that the judgment of civil Court is a nullity being without jurisdiction claiming that it will not be held binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. However, at the same time, the legal proposition that there cannot be any estopple against statute can also not be ignored. The lower Appellate Court has rightly dismissed the appeal being barred by time as sufficient grounds could not be shown by the plaintiff- petitioners for filing the appeal at a belated stage. Even if the Court adopted a liberal approach in condonation of delay still the appeal would have entailed the same result as the Civil Court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate whether a particular land vests in Gram Panchayat or not. On asking of the Court, counsel for the petitioners has informed that neither proceedings under Section 7 of the Act nor any proceedings under Section 13-A of the Act have yet been initiated by any of the parties. C.R. No. 4920 of 2009 [3] Whether the decree passed against the plaintiff- petitioners is a nullity and the plea of the plaintiff- petitioners, the decree being a nullity, can always be taken by the plaintiffs as and when the judgment of the trial Court is projected against their rights. With the abovesaid liberty, the plea that a Court does not have jurisdiction or that the decree without jurisdiction is a nullity is always be open to the petitioners in case any proceedings under Sections 7 or 13-A of the Act are initiated by any of the parties. No ground is made out for interference. Dismissed. November 26, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE