JUDGMENT
R.L. Anand, J.
1. Unsuccessful plaintiff Raghbir Singh and others have filed the present RSA and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.10.1979 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Patiala, who by holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, returned the plaint to the plaintiffs under Order 7, Rule 10, C.P.C. but also framed a decree.
2. The brief facts of the case can be noticed in the following manner:-
3. The plaintiff-appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants Gram Panchayat and Gram Sabha Sagaunch, Tehsil Rajpura, from dispossessing them from the suit land or leasing it or otherwise auctioning it. The case set up by the plaintiff was that the land measuring 31 bighas 15 biswas fully described in the head note of the plaint, situated in the revenue estate of village Sagundh, Tehsil Rajpura, is owned and possessed by them. They had purchased this land from Gopal Dass, allottee, through his Mukhtiar-i-am Thakar Dass, vide sale deed dated 26.11.1974 for a sum of Rs. 32,000/-. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that the proprietory body of village Sagaundh consisted of muslims, who had migrated to Pakistan and the shamlat deh also became evacuee property and it could not vest in the Gram Panchayat. It was stated by them that the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) are void to the extent to which it declared that the share of the Muslims evacuee in the shamlat deh had also vested in the Gram Panchayat. The plaintiffs further alleged that since they had purchased the land in dispute from Gopal Dass, allottee, through his attorney, and were in actual possession, therefore, they could not be dispossessed by the Gram Panchayat, which is threatening to lease out the suit land by auction, etc.
4. Notice of the suit was given to the defendants, who filed the written statement and denied the allegations. According to the defendants, the entire property of village, Sagaundh was not Mohammedan. Rather; the suit land was a shamlat deh, which vested in the defendant-Gram Panchayat. No valid allotment of the land was made in the name of Gopal Dass. In fact, a fictitious allotment was made in favour of Gopal Dass with the connivance of Patwari Halqa. A case Under Section 420, I.P.C. was registered against Patwari Thakar Dass and Ved Parkash in connection with this transaction. Afraid of arrest in the said case, the concerned Patwari committed suicide. The defendant Gram Panchayat is in possession of the suit land, which is a shamlat Deh and, in these circumstances, the plaintiffs are not entitled to relief prayed for.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:-
“1. Whether the land in suit is an evacuee property? If so, its effect? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the land in suit? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction prayed for? OPP
4. Whether the land in suit is shamlat deh and vests in the defendants? OPD
5. Relief.”
6. The parties led evidence in support of their case and on the conclusion of the proceedings vide the judgment and decree dated 22.1.1977, the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Rajpura, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs.
7. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plain tiffs filed the first appeal in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Patiala, who vide the judgment and decree dated 26.10.1979, modified the judgment and decree of the trial Court and remarked that since the civil Court had no jurisdiction, therefore, the suit of the plain-tiffs could not be dismissed. Rather, he ordered for the return of the plaint to the plain-tiffs by drafting the decree and aggrieved by the same, the present appeal.
8. I have heard the counsel for the appellants and with his assistance gone through the record of this case.
9. In the view of this Court the first appellate Court has rightly taken the view that the jurisdiction of the civil Court was barred Under Section 13 of the Act, which lays down that no civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate upon any question, where any property or any right to or interest in any property is or is not shamlat deh vested or deemed to have been vested in a Panchayat under this Act.
10. Faced with this difficulty, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the amendment in the Act came in the year 1976 when Section 13 of the Act was added but in the present case, the suit was instituted prior to 1976 and, therefore, section 13 of the Act cannot apply retrospectively.
11. I do not subscribe to this argument. A reading of section 13 makes it clear that this section can even apply at the appellate stage when the courts are going to decide the rights of the parties as to whether the suit property is or is not a shamlat deh within the meaning of section 2(g) of the Act.
12. The learned counsel for the appellants, then, submitted that the observations may be made by the High Court so that the plaintiffs may be able to approach the Collector Under Section 11 of the Act.
13. There is merit in this contention. Section 11(1) of the Act lays down that any person claiming right, title or interest in any land, vested or deemed to have been vested in a panchayat, under this Act or claiming that any land has not so vested in a Panchayat, may submit to the Collector, within such time verified in the prescribed manner and the Collector shall have jurisdiction to decide such claim in such manner as may be prescribed. It is the case of defendant-respondent that the property in dispute vested in the Gram Panchayat. In this view of the matter, this point alone can be adjudicated by the Collector under the Act.
14. The present appeal is hereby disposed of with the observations that the plaintiff-appellants shall approach to the Collector within two months from today and shall submit a proper application Under Section 11 of the Act and the Collector shall dispose of the matter according to law and shall not be influenced by the fact that the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court or that the plaint was returned by the first appellate court. The learned Collector under the Act shall dispose of the matter according to law and to decide whether the property in question could ever vest in the Gram Panchayat or not. It may also be observed that if the petition Under Section 11 of the Act is filed within two months from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order, the limitation shall be deemed to have been condoned in that eventuality by the Collector.
15. Copy of the order be given dasti.