HATHI RAM Vs. GANPAT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Against the plaintiff, there were proceedings under Section 7 of the Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in which it was found that the site in dispute was a street and he was directed to remove the encroachment. While the suit for injunction to retain the five villagers from interfering in his possession with regard to the same site was pending in Civil Court, Section 7 proceedings were started against the plaintiff at the instance of the panchayat. In those proceedings, it is not clear whether the plaintiff set up the question of title or not because if he had raised the question of title. Then according to the decision of this Court the Assistant Collector would have stayed his hands with regard to the matter under Section 7 of the Act and would have first determined the question of title. Anyhow proceedings under Section 7 have become final between the parties.

(2.) When the suit came up for decision, the trial Court took notice of the proceedings under Section 7 and others passed therein and came to the conclusion that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit since the property was held to be shamilat Deh having vested in the Gram Panchayat. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff remained unsuccessful before the lower Appellate Court and this is his second appeal in this Court.

(3.) In view of the findings recorded by the Assistant Collector in proceedings under Section 7 of the Act wherein it is held that the site in dispute is shamilat Deh and vests in the Gram Panchayat, the Civil Court will have no jurisdiction to entertain the civil suit.