RAKHA SINGH Vs. BABU SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the present appellants had filed a suit against the respondents, who had been sued in representative capacity, for a declaration that the land in dispute was Shamilat Deh and was reserved for common purposes and for the use of villagers and the defendants had no exclusive right of ownership over that land. They also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the joint user of the suit land by all the villagers. In the alternative, they prayed for joint possession of the above land. According to the allegations in the plaint, the suit land was entered in the revenue papers as Shamilat Deh from the very beginning and was used by all the residents of the village for common purposes. Though there were two Pattis in the village but the suit land did not belong to any Patti exclusively. The defendants who were proprietors in the village, had got mutation sanctioned in respect of this land in their favour and in the new Jamabandi for the year 1971-72 they were wrongly recorded as owners. The suit land continued to be Shamilat Deh and remained reserved for common purposes of the villagers including the non- proprietors. On account of wrong entry in the Jamabandi the defendants started claiming themselves to be the exclusive owners of this land. Hence the suit.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that section 13 of the Act will come into play only when the Gram Panchayat is one of the parties to the suit and in the present case the Gram Panchayat is not a party and the litigation is between individuals. I am of the opinion that this argument has no force. From the wording of section 13 it cannot be inferred that it will be applicable if one of the contesting parties is Gram Panchayat. In my opinion bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court will come into play even if the litigation is between individuals if the dispute is of the nature falling under section 13 of the Act. In Chandgi and another v. Nihal Singh and others,1979 PunLJ 125, the dispute was between individuals i.e. Gram Panchayat concerned was not a party. In that case section 13(a) of the Act, as applicable to Haryana, was amended during the pendency of the appeal in the lower Appellant Court and the amended section read as follows :

(3.) In Gram Sabha Balad Kalan v. Sarwan Singh and others,1981 PunLJ 311 section 13(a) of the Act, as applicable to Punjab, came up for interpretation. In that case the plaintiffs had filed a suit against Gram Sabha for a declaration that the land in dispute was not governed by the definition of Shamilat Deh as defined in the Act and, therefore, did not vest in the Panchayat. The trial Court decreed the suit. On the question of jurisdiction it was held that as the question involved was one of the title, the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. The appeal filed by the Gram Sabha was unsuccessful. Second Appeal was filed in this Court. In that case counsel for the appellants had placed reliance upon section 13(a) of the Act and argued that Civil Court had been barred not only from entertaining but also from adjudicating upon any question as to whether the property is or is not Shamilat Deh and, therefore, not only the institution of the fresh suit had been debarred but also the decision in pending suits. That argument was accepted by a Division Bench of this Court and it was remarked :-