Civil Revision No. 1179 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1179 of 2011 Date of Decision: 1.8.2011 *** Jaskaran Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Ajit Singh & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. R.K. Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate for the respondents. ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner is one of the plaintiffs in the suit for declaration, possession and consequential relief. Though, vide order dated 18.12.2010 the learned Nyayadhikari, Gram Nyayalaya, sent the file to the learned District Judge for entrustment of the case to Civil Court, but the latter declined the reference by virtue of order dated 6.1.2011, leading to the institution of the present revision petition. Heard. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the dispute involved in the suit is with regard to the Government Grant to the Jagirdars which by its nature and incidents and as per the terms and conditions of the Grant is inalienable and the succession is to be regulated in terms of the rules framed by the Government viz. Granter of Land and provisions of Transfer of Property Act and the general laws/ enactment are not applicable. Therefore, taking into account the fact that the dispute does not fall in any of the disputes prescribed under Second Schedule, Part I of the Gram Nyayalaya Act, 2008, the Rural Court rightly referred the matter to the learned District Judge. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned District Judge while declining the reference, nowhere gives any reasoning to take a different view taken by the Presiding Officer of the Rural Court, who after elaborately discussing and taking into account the Civil Revision No. 1179 of 2011 2 provisions of Gram Nyayalaya Act and the nature of dispute involved in the suit, find it beyond his jurisdiction. Prima facie, the dispute involved in the suit is not within the ambit of the jurisdiction of Rural Courts. For the above discussion, the instant revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned District Judge concerned to consider the matter in the light of observations made above and then pass orders afresh. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE August 1, 2011 Jiten