BARA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 7281 and 7364, both of 1976, in which the point for consideration is identical. Bara Singh and other petitioners (in Civil Writ Petition No. 7281 of 1976) filed a civil suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge First Class, Rajpura, against Gram Sabha and Gram Panchayat Bartana, for a declaration that the petitioners are the owners in possession of some agricultural land, measuring 596 bighas 9 biswas, as they are biswadars and co-sharers in the land which was described as shamilat deh. The claim made was that the land does not, in fact, fall within the definition of shamilat deh as mentioned in the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The suit was contested by the respondents, who controverted the above allegations and stressed that the land had vested in the Gram Panchayat and was fully covered within the definition of shamilat deh. The respondents also disputed the claim of the petitioners being in possession of the land or being in individual cultivating possession thereon. Section 13 of the Act having been amended, a preliminary issue was framed by the learned Subordinate Judge as to whether the civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit or not. After consideration of the said issue, the trial Court recorded a finding that its jurisdiction to try the suit had been barred by the amendment of the Act. The suit of the petitioner was, therefore, dismissed. This order of the learned Subordinate Judge is the subject-matter of dispute in the present Writ Petition.

(2.) At the time of the motion hearing in this petition notice was issued to the opposite party and it was also directed that the petition be laid down for hearing after the decision in Civil Writ Petition No. 1710 of 1976 : DIGH RAM V/S STATE OF HARYANA, 1977 PunLJ 446. The said Writ Petition came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court, to which I was also a party. The vires of sections 13 and 13-B as amended by the Haryana Act was examined in that case and after detailed consideration of the matter, the aforesaid amendments were found to be intra vires. The relevant provisions of the Act were also amended in so far as their applicability to Punjab is concerned. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Gur Rattan Pal Singh has with all reasonableness submitted that he would not contest the findings in regard to the vires of the amendments on considerations which had already been examined by the Division Bench in Civil Writ Petition No. 1710 of 1976 DIGH RAM V/S STATE OF HARYANA, 1977 PunLJ 446. He has, however, raised some further contentions which may be examined. It is submitted that there was some difference between the amendments as applicable to Punjab and those which were made applicable in Haryana. A comparative reading of the two amendments indicate that in so far as section 13 of the Act is concerned, there it hardly any material difference. Whereas in the Haryana Act the entertaining or adjudication of questions as to whether any land or other immovable property etc. vests or does not vest in Panchayat, was left to the "Officers empowered by or under the Act", in the Punjab these officers were specified, the same being the Commissioner or the Collector. The only other difference in the two legislations is that under section 13-B of the amendment as applicable to Haryana, all suits pending in any civil Court in respect of any land or other immovable property wherein relief had been claimed on the ground of its being excluded from shamilat deh, were transferred to the Authorities specified under the Amended Act and fresh proceedings for seeking relief on these grounds were to be instituted before those Authorities and not before the civil Court. In the Punjab Act, however, there is no parallel provision in regard to the transfer of such civil suits to the Revenue Authorities. This difference is not material in so far as the present case is concerned as by means of the impugned order, the learned Subordinate Judge has merely dismissed the suit of the petitioners on the ground that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. It did not transfer the suit to the Revenue Authorities.

(3.) No other point is urged in this case. The matter is fully covered by the decision of the Bench in Civil Writ Petition No. 1710 of 1976 : DIGH RAM V/S STATE OF HARYANA, 1977 PunLJ 446. The Writ Petition is dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 100/-.