R.S.A. No. 3664 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3664 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 11.07.2011 Mahinder Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Gram Panchayat Village Aurangabad ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellants. MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J. (Oral) Concisely, the facts, which require to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the present appeal and emanating from the record are, that Mahinder Singh and Virender Singh sons of Kanwar Lal son of Kishan Lal and Girraj son of Kishan Lal-appellant-plaintiffs (hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiffs”) filed the suit against Gram Panchayat of Village Aurangabad, Tehsil Palwal, District Faridabad-respondent-defendant (for brevity “the defendant-GP”) for a decree of declaration to the effect that they are in possession of the land in dispute, with consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendant-GP from interfering, in any manner, in their peaceful possession, inter alia, pleading that after the death of their ancestors, they became the owners and the defendant-GP, intends to illegally eject them from the land in dispute, without any legal right. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiff filed the suit for a decree of declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendant-GP, in the manner depicted hereinabove. R.S.A. No. 3664 of 2010(O&M) 2 2. The defendant-Gram Panchayat contested the suit and filed the written statement, taking certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the said, concealment of facts, cause of action and locus standi of the plaintiffs. However, it was denied that the plaintiffs are the owners and in possession of the suit land, which was stated to have already vested in the Gram Panchayat. It was claimed that Kishan Lal, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs had illegally entered his name in the Jamabandi as ‘Gair Marusi” in the land, which he had already exchanged with the land of the Gram Panchayat, with the connivance of the revenue officers. He had already exchanged the land in question with the land of Gram Panchayat, measuring 6 kanal 16 marlas and in the wake of exchange, the defendant-GP, became the owner in possession of the land in dispute. It will not be out of place to mention here that the defendant-GP has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 3. In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the necessary issues for proper adjudication of the controversy, as depicted in its judgment and the case was slated for evidence of the plaintiffs. 4. The parties to the lis in order to substantiate their respective stands, brought on record the oral as well as the documentary evidence. 5. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the entire oral as well as the documentary evidence brought on record by the parties, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs by way of impugned judgment and decree dated 18.08.2009. 6. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiffs filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well by the first Appellate Court by virtue of impugned judgment and decree dated 26.04.2010. 7. The appellant-plaintiffs still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below and preferred the present regular second appeal. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiffs, going R.S.A. No. 3664 of 2010(O&M) 3 through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the appeal. 9. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since, the plaintiffs are co-owners and in possession of the property in dispute, so, the Courts below committed a mistake in dismissing their suit, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 10. As is evident from the record, the plaintiffs claimed that after the death of their common ancestors, they became co-owners and in possession of the property in dispute. On the contrary, according to the defendant-GP, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs had already exchanged the land in dispute with the land of Gram Panchayat and in this manner, the land in dispute was given to the defendant-GP and the plaintiffs are neither owners, nor in possession of the suit property. 11. Above being the position on record, now whether the plaintiffs are owners and in possession of the suit property, or it vests in the Gram Panchayat, is the moot point to be decided in this case. Once, the question arose, as to whether any land or other immovable property is or is not ‘Shamlat Deh’, or any land or other immovable property or any right, title or interest in such land or other immovable property vests or does not vest in a Panchayat under this Act, in that eventuality, the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred, as contemplated under Section 13 of The Punjab Village Common Lands(Regulation) Act, 1961(as applicable to Haryana). To me, the Courts below have rightly negatived the claim of the plaintiffs in this relevant connection. 12. Having considered the legal provisions, the trial Court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs and its judgment and decree were upheld by the first Appellate Court by means of impugned judgment and decree dated 26.04.2010, the operative part of which is, as follows: - “The entire pleadings of the plaintiffs in nutshell are that the plaintiffs have claimed that they are owners in possession of the suit property and R.S.A. No. 3664 of 2010(O&M) 4 Gram Panchayat has no right, title or interest in the suit property. The said contents are specifically denied by the defendant. Therefore, in these circumstances by pleadings of the parties, a dispute arose which require decision of civil court that the property in dispute is or is not owned and possessed by Gram Panchayat and whether the property in dispute is covered within the definition of Shamlat Deh or not. This question could not be decided by learned Civil Court because in view of Section 13 of The Punjab Village Common Lands Act, Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide that any land or other immoveable property is or not Shamlat Deh. In this case, the plaintiffs have specifically claimed that they are owners of the property in dispute and they are in possession as owners. The position would have been different if the plaintiffs could have claimed that they are in possession over the property in dispute as Gair Marousi and in that event the jurisdiction of the Civil Court could have been attracted because relief of injunction could not be granted to the plaintiffs by a revenue court. In the present case, the plaintiffs have specifically claimed ownership with regard to land in dispute which is specifically denied by the defendants. Therefore, in view of Section 13 of The Punjab Village Common Lands Act, the civil court has got jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the plaintiffs and defendant. The present land in dispute was mutated in favour of defendant Gram Panchayat. If the plaintiffs want to get the suit land mutated in their favour and to claim that they are owners in possession of the suit property they had to file a suit before Collector, in view of the provisions of The Punjab Village Common Lands Act, as applicable to Haryana.” 13. Meaning thereby, the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court having scanned the admissible evidence brought on record in relation to the pleadings of the parties and legal position, have rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs and recorded the valid grounds in the impugned judgments and decrees. Such judgments, containing the valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, so as to take a contrary view, than that of the well-articulated decision arrived at by the Courts below, in this respect. R.S.A. No. 3664 of 2010(O&M) 5 14. Neither, any question of law, much less substantial, is involved in this regular second appeal, nor any other point, worth consideration, has been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the appellants. 15. In the light of aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as such. 11.07.2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema Judge