PIARE LAL Vs. PURAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in suit No. 304/1 of 1964 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge Ist Class, Sonepat, are the appellants in this second appeal. The plaintiff Puran filed the suit for an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his possession of the property marked ABCD in the plaint plan. He alleged that the property was always in the possession of his family and that he had built pucca houses in the property twenty years back. Piare Lal first defendant, had filed application under Section 7 of the Punjab (Haryana) Village Common Lands (regulation) Act, 1961, for the ejectment of the plaintiff claiming that the land was shamilat deh. The higher authorities constituted under that Act affirmed the order of ejectment on 1.7.1963 and 30.6.1964. The plaintiff filed the suit for an injunction, impugning these orders as illegal and without jurisdiction on the ground that the land was not shamilat deh. The defendants who included the Gram Panchayat pleaded that the suit was barred by the provisions of Section 13 of the Punjab (Haryana) Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act. The trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Rohtak, held that the land in dispute was not shamilat deh and did not vest in the Panchayat as claimed by the defendants and that the suit was maintainable as it involved a question of title. This view of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge is assailed in this second appeal.

(2.) Section 2(g) of the Act defines the land which is included in shamilat deh and Section 4 provides that all rights, title and interest in the shamilat deh shall vest in the village panchayat. Section 7 of the Act provides for he ejectment of a person who is in wrongful or unauthorised possession of the land included in the shamilat deh of the village. An appeal is provided against the order of ejectment. Previously, a second appeal was also provided. Section 13 excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Court : (1) to entertain or adjudicate upon any question as to whether any land or other immoveable property or any right or interest in such land or other immoveable property vests or does not vest in a Panchayat under the Act, (2) in respect of any other matter which any officer is empowered by or under the Act to determine, or (3) to question the legality of any action taken or any matter decided by any authority empowered to do so under the Act. It cannot be disputed that the authorities constituted under the Act are competent to decide the question whether or not a particular land is within the shamilat deh which vests in the Panchayat and whether a person in occupation is in wrongful or unauthorised possession of land in shamilat deh which has vested in Panchayat. It is further to be observed that these questions arise directly for the determination of the statutory authorities in an application under Section 7 and not collaterally as jurisdictional facts. Thus, the jurisdiction to decide these questions is given to the authorities constituted under the Act directly and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain any suit involving those questions is expressly barred by Section 13.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decisions of Jain, J. in Dieya Ram v. State of Haryana, 1971 PunLJ 19 and Sharma, J. in Mawashi v. Gram Sahba, Daulatabad, 1973 PunLJ 264. These cases certainly support the appellant.