CHANDER PARKASH Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 24-2-1987 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal. A suit was filed by the plaintiff-petitioners against the Gram Panchayat, Ranwar, and Goverdhan Dass respondent No. 2 for a declaration to the effect that the petitioners are the owners in possession of the suit land, and for granting a permanent injunction restraining respondent No. 1 from interfering with their possession. An application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was filed for grant of a temporary injunction which was allowed by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 26-8-1986. The respondents were restrained from taking possession of the land in dispute from the petitioners on the basis of the order dated 8-7-1986 passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Karnal, till the decision of the suit.

(2.) THE respondents were aggrieved against the above order of the trial Court. They, therefore, preferred an appeal which has been allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, vide the impugned order. The order of the trial Court has been set aside and the ad-interim injunction granted by it has been vacated. This is how the petitioners have approached this Court through the present revision petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that Gowardhan Dass respondent No. 2 had made an application before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. Karnal, under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') against the petitioners which was allowed. It was alleged therein that the plaintiffs were in unauthorised possession of the suit land and that Gram Panchayat respondent No. 1 was its real owner. The Assistant Collector directed the petitioners to put the Gram Panchayat in possession of the land in dispute holding that it vested in it under the Act. An appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector was filed by the petitioners before the Collector under sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act but the same was dismissed. The petitioners then approached the Civil Court through the instant suit challenging the orders of the Assistant Collector and the Collector. They contended that they were the owners of the suit land and were in its possession. A question of title was involved in the proceedings under Section 7 of the Act before the Assistant Collector but instead of deciding the same under Section 13-A of the Act, he passed the summary order under Section 7 ibid which was impugned. The learned Additional District Judge has held that the orders passed by the Assistant Collector and the Collector could not be challenged in Civil Court as its jurisdiction is barred under Section 13 of the Act.