RSA No. 1711 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1711 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: May 20 , 2010 Ranbir and others ...... Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.H.N.Mehtani, Advocate for the appellants. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellants for declaration and injunction that they are the owners of the land in dispute and not the respondents. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit on merits, however, the learned Lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on the short ground that the question involved in the suit was triable by the Collector under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands ( Regulation) Act, 1961 as applicable to Haryana. Section 13-A reads as follows:- 13-A. Adjudication.- (1) Any person or in the case of a Panchayat, either the Panchayat or its Gram Sachiv, the concerned Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Social RSA No. 1711 of 2010(O&M) 2 Education and Panchayat Officer or any other officer duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf, claiming right, title or interest in any land or other immovable property vested or deemed to have been vested in the Panchayat under this Act, may file a suit for adjudication, whether such land or other immovable property is shamilat deh or not and whether any land or other immovable property or any right, title or interest therein vests or does not vest in a Panchayat under this Act, in the court of the Collector, having jurisdiction in the area wherein such land or other immovable property is situated. Provided that no suit shall lie under this section in respect of the land or other immovable property, which is or has been the subject matter of the proceedings under section 7 of this Act under which the question of title has been raised and decided or under adjudication. (2) The procedure for deciding the suits under sub-section (1) shall be the same as laid down in the Code of civil Procedure, 1908. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the finding of the learned Lower Appellate Court is wrong in law. Once that is so and it has to be upheld that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction, the arguments of learned counsel on the merits of the controversy, have to be necessarily disregarded. Of course, once it is held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction, it would be open to the appellants to move appropriate proceedings under Section 13-A of the Act (supra), if so advised. RSA No. 1711 of 2010(O&M) 3 Consequently this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. No costs. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE May 20, 2010 sunita