IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No.1400 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.2.2010 Shyam Singh and others. ....... Appellants. Versus Soran and others. ....... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Shri R.S.Mamli, Advocate for the appellants. .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? .... Mahesh Grover,J. C.M.No.4134-C of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. C.M.No.4135-C of 2009 The application is accepted and the appellants are permitted to place on record copy of judgment, Annexure P1. R.S.A.No.1400 of 2009 & C.M.No.4136-C of 2009 This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgments and decrees dated 28.7.2005 and 29.11.2008 passed respectively by the Civil R.S.A.No.1400 of 2009 (O&M) -2- .... Judge (Junior Division), Kurukshetra (hereinafter described as `the trial Court') and the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra (referred to hereinafter as `the first appellate Court'). C.M.No.4136-C of 2009 has been moved for staying the operation of the impugned judgments & decrees during the pendency of the appeal. Sardara (since deceased) represented by his legal representatives, who are the appellants herein, had filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the defendants-respondents from dispossessing him from the land detailed in paragraph 1 of the plaint. He had also prayed for restraining the defendants from interfering in any other manner with his proprietary and possessory rights over the suit land. Upon notice, defendant-respondent no.4 had appeared and filed written statement contesting the suit. He disputed the averments of the plaintiff and claimed that the suit land, which was shamilat deh, was situated within the abadi of the village and was in his possession. It was alleged that the plaintiff and his relatives were interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit land. As many as four issues were framed by the trial Court and after appraisal of the entire evidence on record, it dismissed the suit. The appeals filed by the plaintiff and respondent no.4 were also dismissed by the first appellate Court. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal by the heirs of the plaintiff. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the impugned judgments. R.S.A.No.1400 of 2009 (O&M) -3- .... The dispute herein relates to some land which is situated in the abadi of the village. Both the Courts have recorded a finding that the jurisdiction of the civil Court was barred as the suit land being situated in the abadi of the village, the dispute was to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act,1961, as applicable to the State of Haryana (for short, `the Act'). Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the findings of the Courts below are erroneous as the land which is situated within the abadi is clearly exempted from the purview of the Act. In my opinion, the contention of the learned counsel is totally without any basis. Section 2(g) of the Act defines the `shamilat deh'. The relevant portion of the same is extracted below:- “2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) to (f) xx xx xx xx xx xx xx (g) `shamilat deh' includes- (1)to (3) xx xx xx xx xx xx xx (4)lands used or reserved for the benefit of the village community including streets, lanes, playgrounds, school, drinking wells, or ponds within abadi deh or gorah deh; and (5) xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx” The Courts below have found as a matter of fact that the disputed land was shamilat deh and was being used for the benefit of the village. There was no evidence on record which could controvert this R.S.A.No.1400 of 2009 (O&M) -4- .... finding. The provisions of the Act clearly bars the jurisdiction of the civil Court to deal with the matters pertaining to shamilat deh. Therefore, the dispute herein clearly fell within the ambit of the Act and the findings recorded by the Courts below cannot be termed to be erroneous. The appeal is, accordingly, held to be without any merit and is dismissed. C.M.No.4136-C of 2009 is also dismissed in view of the above. February 25,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge