RATTAN SINGH Vs. GRAM SABHA BUDHA THEH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's second appeal. He filed a suit for permanent injunction on the allegations that he was the owner-in-possession of the suit land and the defendants had no right, title or interest to interfere in his possession. The trial Court dismissed that suit with costs. On appeal, the lower appellate Court found that the plaintiff is in peaceful possession of the suit land and the natural justice and equity demand that he may be allowed to remain in possession of the suit land till such time when the title of the suit land is finally adjudicated upon and that in case eventually, the plaintiff is found to have no title to the suit land and on the contrary, the title is held to be vesting in the Gram Sabha, the latter shall be entitled to recover the possession from the plaintiff as well as mesne profits for the period during which the plaintiff remains in possession of the suit land. Whilst allowing the plaintiff's appeal partly, the lower appellate Court transmitted the file to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, for adjudicating upon the title to the suit property.

(2.) The only question raised on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant is that the lower appellate Court has gravely erred in transmitting the file to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade for adjudicating upon the question of title. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Additional District Judge while relying on Section 13-B of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act added by the Haryana Amendment Act, 1974, transferred the case to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade for adjudicating upon the question of title whereas the said provision has no application in the State of Punjab. According to him, Section 13-B added by the Haryana Amendment Act, no doubt, provides that all suits pending in any Civil Court in respect of any land or other immovable property wherein relief has been claimed on the ground of its being excluded from Shamlat Deh under clause (g) of Section 2 or on any of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (3) of Section 4 against the Panchayat shall stand transferred to and the fresh proceedings for seeking relief on the aforesaid grounds shall be instituted before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade having jurisdiction in the village wherein the land or other immovable property is situate, who shall dispose of the same in the manner laid down in sub-sections (5) and (7) of Section 13-A.

(3.) In the present case, it seems virtually the admitted position of the learned counsel for the parties that all lower appellate Court has committed a mistake by placing reliance on the provisions of Section 13-B added by the Haryana Amendment to the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and by transferring the case to the Assistant Collector for adjudicating upon the question of title. I agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that under Section 13-B of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, the case could not be transferred to the Assistant Collector to adjudicate upon the question of title. I would, therefore accept this appeal to the extent that I set aside that part of the order of the lower appellate Court whereby it transferred the case to the Assistant Collector for adjudicating upon the question of title. The result is that the appeal is allowed only to this extent. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.