TARA CHAND Vs. NEONAND ALIAS NAUNDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff-appellants have filed the present appeal against the judgment dated 8.1.1979 passed by Sub-Judge Ist Class, Bhiwani, as well as the judgment dated 1.6.1984 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhiwani by which the suit for declaration and the appeal were dismissed.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the plaintiffs Jeewan etc. had filed a suit for declaration for setting-aside the order and decree passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Bhiwani dated 28.1.1976 by which the defendant-respondent was granted occupancy rights. The order of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Bhiwani, was challenged before the Collector Bhiwani, and Commissioner, Hisar who, also vide their orders dated 31.3.1976 and 17.9.1976 upheld the order of the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Bhiwani.

(3.) IN the suit filed by the plaintiffs it was primarily contended that the revenue Court has no jurisdiction to grant occupancy rights. It was contended that the jurisdiction to grant occupancy rights under the Punjab Occupancy Tenant Act was exclusively with the Civil Court alone and jurisdiction of the revenue Courts was barred. Mr. Verma, counsel for the appellant contends that the respondent had filed a suit for grant of occupancy rights under Section 77(3)(d) of the Punjab Tenancy Act. Learned counsel relied upon the Full Bench judgment in Shiv Charan v. Financial Commissioner, Revenue Department, Haryana and others, 2004(4) RCR(Civil) 543 (P&H) : 2004(3) PLR 569, wherein it was held that it is the Civil Court alone which will have the jurisdiction to determine the dispute as envisaged under Section 77(3)(d) of the Act and the jurisdiction of revenue Court is barred.