R.S.A.No.3561 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.3561 of 2008 Date of Decision : 05.08.2009 Smt. Phoola Rani ...Appellant Versus Tej Pal and Others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Govind Goel, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for mandatory injunction directing defendant No.1 to remove encroachment allegedly made over the street/passage in front of the house of the plaintiff, was dismissed. The learned trial Court found that even if the property in dispute is a street then it is for the Gram Panchayat to prove the same as street. It was further found that it has not been shown that Gram Panchayat has made any efforts to prove the nature of suit property as street or to remove the construction raised by defendant No.1. Such findings were affirmed in appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon a Division Bench Judgment in Baljinder Kaur Vs. Gurdas Ram and another (1988) 2 I.L.R. Punjab & Haryana 22 to contend that suit for R.S.A.No.3561 of 2008 2 permanent injunction in Civil Court is maintainable when there is allegation of encroachment of public street. It is only when the issue regarding vesting of land with Gram Panchayat arises against the Gram Panchayat, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court will be barred in terms of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The provisions considered by the Division Bench in respect of bar of jurisdiction, read as under : “13. Bar of Jurisdiction :- No civil courts shall have jurisdiction -- (a) to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether :- (i)any land or other immoveable property is or is not shamilat deh. (ii)x x x” Whereas, the provisions, which are in existence in Punjab read 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 (c) in respect of any matter which the Commissioner or the R.S.A.No.3561 of 2008 3 Collector is empowered by or under this Act to determine.” The two provisions show that there is material difference in their scope. In a case considered by the Division Bench, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was found to be barred to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether any land or other immoveable property is or is not shamilat deh. Whereas in terms of Section 13 of the Act, the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred even 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. Thus, the jurisdiction of civil court is barred even to determine any right to or interest in any property vesting or not vesting in Panchayat. The right or interest in any property was not barred to be considered by civil court within the scope of Section 13 of the Act considered by the Division Bench. The plaintiff is claiming interest in the property as a public street and, thus, vesting in Panchayat, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in terms of Section 13 of the Act. Thus, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court. Dismissed. 05.08.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE