R.S.A. No. 1610 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1610 of 2010 Date of decision:- 4.11.2011 Gram Panchayat Village Nara, Tehsil and District Panipat through its Sarpanch ...Appellant Versus Amar Nath and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. V.D. Sharma, Advocate for Mr. H.N. Sahu, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sandeep Chabbar, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. RITU BAHRI J. This regular second appeal is against the judgment of the trial Court dated 16.7.2008 and the judgment of Additional District Judge, Panipat dated 13.3.2009 dismissing the appeal against the trial Court judgment. The brief history of the case is that the plaintiff stepped into the shoes of his father late Daiya alias Die Ram, who had been in physical possession of the suit property for the last number of years. Earlier the inhabitants of the village Nara had filed a suit regarding their land, which fell into the sharers in the partition of shamlat land taking place in the village more than 80 years ago. The suit was consolidated by one judgment and decree dated 26.11.1965 in the Civil Suit No.532 of 1963. The individuals were held to be owners in possession of the respective lands and thereby excluding the same R.S.A. No. 1610 of 2010 -2- from the definition of land bearing shamlat deh. The plaintiff filed a civil suit No.550 of 1965 regarding the suit property which was decreed in his favour vide judgment dated 20.11.1965. At that stage, the Gram Panchayat initiated an ejectment petition under Section 7(1) of Indian Village Common Lands Act for ejecting the plaintiff bearing suit No.78/60. This suit was allowed by the A.C. 1st Grade, Panipat vide order dated 3.10.1980. On appeal the A.C. 1st Grade, Panipat modified the order of the Collector dated 31.3.1981. This order was challenged by way of filing Writ Petition No.1830 of 1981 in which Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court vide order dated 18.11.1987, quashed the orders of the revenue Court dated 3.10.1980 and 31.3.1981. The plaintiff has filed the present suit No.223/1 of 2005 for getting the mutation of ownership entered and sanctioned in his favour, in view of the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 26.11.1965. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 19.12.2005 :- “1. Whether entries in the revenue record i.e. Jamabandi since 1965 and Khasra Girdwari showing the name of defendant No.3 in the column of ownership regarding the suit land measuring 3K-7M situated at village Nara Tehsil and District Panipat and as detailed in the head note of the plaint are illegal, null and void and are thus not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff? OPP 2. In case issue No.1 is decided in favour of plaintiff then whether plaintiff is also entitled to relief of mandatory as well as permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred under Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Land Act, 1961 for entertaining the present suit? OPD R.S.A. No. 1610 of 2010 -3- 5. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 6. Relief.” The trial Court after going through the entire undisputed facts narrated above, came to the conclusion that the orders of this Court dated 20.11.1965 are binding and not disputed by the defendants. The plaintiff was held entitled for the declaration that he is owner of the suit land measuring 3 Kanal 7 Marlas situated in Village Nara, Tehsil and District Panipat. The suit was decreed and the entries for the year 1965 in the revenue record showing the name of Gram Panchayat, Village Nara in the column of ownership as per details of the plaint, were declared null and void. The suit was decreed with a cost of Rs.2000/-. On appeal by the gram panchayat the findings recorded by the trial Court were affirmed and it was held that the judgment and decree dated 20.11.1965 has attained finality and the plaintiffs have inherited the suit land from their father. The eviction orders passed by the Gram Panchayat were challenged by the plaintiff and this Court vide order dated 18.11.1987 had set aside the eviction order dated 03.10.1980 and 31.3.1981 qua the suit land while recognizing the claim of the plaintiff qua suit land. Mr. V.D. Sharma, counsel for the Gram Panchayat has argued on the limited point that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was specifically barred under Section 158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. The only prayer made by the plaintiff was for correction of the entries i the jamabandies and khasra girdawaries. On this, counsel for the respondent has referred to Section 45 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act by which a suit for decree of declaration can be passed by an aggrieved party regarding an entry in the record. Section 45 of the Act is reproduced below :- “45. Suit for declaratory decree by persons, aggrieved by an entry in a record :- If any person R.S.A. No. 1610 of 2010 -4- considers himself aggrieved as to any right of which he is in the possession by an entry in a record-of-rights or in an annual record, he may institute a suit for a declaration of his right under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. He has referred to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Tarlok Singh versus Financial Commissioner Co-operation, Punjab, Chandigarh and others 2004(3) PLR 355 in which the Division Bench of this Court while examining Section 45 of the Act held that for correction of revenue entries the only remedy available to an aggrieved individual, is to file a suit under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Revenue Officer cannot exercise the power for correction of any mistake in the jamabandies. To the same effect the judgment of this Court is in Sat Parkash alias Satpal versus The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab and others 2009(4) RCR (Civil) 357. The Civil Court while determining the rights of the parties leaving it to the Revenue Officer to record the revenue record incorrect with the allegation made by the Civil Court of the rights of the parties. Section 158(2)(6) pertains to correction of entries in the revenue record and does not provide the provisions of Section 45 of the Act and any person aggrieved by an entry in the record ensue for declaration in the Civil Court. This is the consistent view, which has been followed by this Court in Kurdia versus Surta 1991 PLJ 726 and Gopal Singh (died) through his LRs versus Punjab State 1993(1) PLR 213 . The language of Section 45 of Punjab Land Revenue Act in no uncertain terms talks of a right which an aggrieved person may agitate if he is in possession of the land. The basis of claim covered by Section 45 is, thus, a right which has to be adjudicated by instituting a suit for declaration under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The moment a suit is made cognizable under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, it is the Civil Court which will have the jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. No revenue officer or a Court by any provision of the R.S.A. No. 1610 of 2010 -5- Land Revenue Act shall be competent to try the rights of a person under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act. In the facts of the present case the judgment of this Court dated 26.11.1965 in Civil suit No.532 of 1963 had held that the Gram Panchayat was not the owner after recording the findings that after partition of the shamlat deh land, the Gram Panchayat was not owner of the land. Once, this finding has been given, the suit for declaration, filed by the plaintiff under Section 45 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act for correction of the jamabandi was maintainable. As this correction amounted to change in the ownership. It was not a clerical mistake, which the Financial Commissioner could do under Section 158(2)(vi) of the Act. Section 158(2)(vi) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 reads as under :- “Section 158 - Except as otherwise provided by this Act - (1) A Civil Court shall not have jurisdiction in any matter which the State Government or a Revenue Officer is empowered by this Act to dispose of or take cognizance of the manner in which the State Government or any Revenue Officer exercises any powers vested in it or him by or, under this Act; and in particular (2) a Civil Court shall not exercise jurisdiction over any of the following matters, namely :-(i) to (v)...... (vi) the correction of any entry in a record-of-rights, annual record or register of mutations; (vii) to (xxiv).....” The Division Bench judgment Tarlok Singh versus Financial Commissioner Co-operation, Punjab, Chandigarh and others 2004(3) PLR 355 is applicable to the facts of the present case. The suit filed under Section 45 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 on the basis of a judgment passed in Civil Suit No.532 of 1963 decided on 26.11.1965 was maintainable. Once the finding has been given that the Gram Panchayat was not the owner of the land, the suit for declaration under Section 45 of the Punjab Land Revenue Revenue Act was R.S.A. No. 1610 of 2010 -6- maintainable. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for adjudication by this Court. The regular second appeal is dismissed. 4.11.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE