PETITIONER:
BABU RAM & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
GRAM SABHA BUHAVI & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT06/04/1988
BENCH:
MISRA RANGNATH
BENCH:
MISRA RANGNATH
DUTT, M.M. (J)
CITATION:
1988 AIR 1085 1988 SCR (3) 436
1988 SCC Supl. 485 JT 1988 (2) 21
1988 SCALE (1)640
ACT:
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961: ss.
13(a) (i), 13(a) (ii) and 13B-Effect of amendment by Haryana
Act 2 of 1981 omitting s. 13B with retrospective effect-
Civil Court barred from adjudicating upon question whether
any land or immovable property is or is not Shamilat deh-
Shamilat deh in adverse possession-Civil Court whether has
jurisdiction to determine ownership.
HEADNOTE:
%
Section 13B of the Punjab Village Common Lands
(Regulation) Act, 1961 inserted therein by the Haryana Act
34 of 1974 mandated transfer of all suits pending in any
civil court against the panchayat relating to the question
as to whether the suit land was excluded from the ambit of
shamilat deh, to and institution of fresh proceedings in
such cases before the Assistant Collector having
jurisdiction over the village.
The suit filed by the appellants for a declaration that
they were the owners of the land in dispute in their
possession and that the respondent Gram Sabha had nothing to
do with the same, was transferred by the trial court to the
Assistant Collector under s. 13B of the Act. The revision
application filed by them was dismissed by the High Court.
During the pendency of the appeal by special leave in
this Court the Act was further amended by Act 2 of 1981
deleting s. 13B with retrospective effect from November 12,
1974. Amended s. 13(a) barred jurisdiction of civil courts
to entertain or adjudicate upon the question (i) whether any
land or other immovable property is or is not shamilat deh,
and (ii) whether the suit land vests or does not vest in the
Panchayat.
It was contended for the appellants that there was no
dispute as to the question whether the suit land was
shamilat deh or not. The only question that has to be
decided in the suit was whether the appellants had acquired
title to the suit land by adverse possession, and therefore,
s. 13(a)(i) was not applicable.
437
Dismissing the appeal,
^
HELD: The suit instituted by the appellants cannot be
heard and disposed of by the civil court. The Assistant
Collector to whom the suit has been transferred has
jurisdiction to dispose of the same in accordance with the
provisions of the Act as amended. [440AB]
The trial court had transferred the suit to the
Assistant Collector on a finding that the controversy
between the parties related to the question as to whether
the suit land was excluded from the ambit of shamilat deh as
defined in s. 2(g) of the Act. The said finding has not been
challenged either before the High Court or in the special
leave petition. Therefore, the civil court will have no
jurisdiction to try the suit instituted by the appellants
involving the decision on the question as contained in s.
13(a)(i) of the Act. [439F-G]
Even assuming that s. 13(a)(i) is not applicable and
that the question to be decided in the suit is whether the
appellants had acquired title to the suit land which is
Shamilat deh within the meaning of s. 2(g) of the Act, still
the civil court will have no jurisdiction to try the suit in
view of s. 13(a)(ii) of the Act, for the question would be
whether the suit land vests or does not vest in the Gram
sabha. [439H, 440A]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDlCTION: Civil Appeal No. 1951 of
1978.
From the Judgment and order dated 27.4.1977 of the
Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No. 869 of
1975.
Harbans Lal and S. K. Mehta for the Appellants.
Ashok Grover for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DUTT, J. In this appeal by special leave the appellants
have challenged the constitutional validity of section 13B
of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961,
hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’.
Section 13B of the Act, as it stood before its
amendment, provides inter alia that all suits pending in any
Civil Court in respect of any land or other immovable
property wherein relief has been claimed on
438
the ground of its being excluded from shamilat deh under
clause (g) of section 2 or on any of the grounds mentioned
in sub-section (3) of section 4 of the Act against the
Panchayat, shall stand transferred to and the fresh
proceedings for seeking relief on the aforesaid grounds
shall be instituted before the Assistant Collector of the
First Grade having jurisdiction over the village wherein the
land or other immovable property is situate.
The appellants have filed a suit before the Subordinate
Judge, First Class, Kurukshetra, for a declaration that they
are the owners of the land in dispute measuring about 124
acres in their respective possession and the respondent Gram
Sabha Buhavi has nothing to do with the same. The learned
Subordinate Judge, transferred the suit to the Assistant
Collector, First Grade, Thanesar, under section 13B, upon a
finding that the controversy between the parties relates to
the question as to whether the suit land was excluded from
the ambit of shamilat deh, as defined in section 2(g) of the
Act. The appellants, being aggrieved by the said order of
transfer, filed an application for revision against the same
before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The High Court by
the impugned judgment dismissed the revisional application
and upheld the order of the learned Subordinate Judge
transferring the suit to the Assistant Collector under
section 13B of the Act. Hence this appeal by special leave.
It is not necessary for us to consider the
constitutional validity of section 13B of the Act, as during
the pendency of the appeal in this Court, the Act was
amended by the Haryana Act 2 of 1981. Section 5 of Act 2 of
1981 omitted sections 13A of 13B from the Act with
retrospective effect from November 12, 1974, that is to say,
the date on which they were inserted in the Act by the
Haryana Act 34 of 1974. Section 4 of Act 2 of 1981 amended
section 13 of the Act. The amended section 13 provides as
follows:
“S. 13. Bar of jurisdiction-No Civil Court shall
have jurisdiction
(a) to entertain or adjudicate upon any question
whether
(i) any land or other immovable property is
or is not shamilat deh;
(ii) any land or other immovable property or
any right, title or interest in such
land or other immovable
439
property vests or does not vest in under
this Act;
(b) in respect of any matter which any revenue
court, officer or authority is empowered by
or under this Act to determine, or
(c) to question the legality of any action taken
or matter decided by any revenue court,
officer or authority empowered to do so under
this Act.”
In view of the fact that section 13B has been omitted
with retrospective effect, the question of the
constitutional validity of that section is no longer
relevant. The only question that now arises is whether the
Civil Court has jurisdiction to hear the suit instituted by
the appellants. Section 13(a)(i), as substituted by Act 2 of
1981, takes away the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to
entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether any land
or immovable property is or is not shamilat deh.
It is, however, submitted by Mr. Harbans Lal, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, that there is
no dispute as to the question whether the suit land is
shamilat deh or not. The appellants admit that the suit land
is shamilat deh. The only question that has to be decided in
the suit is whether the appellants have acquired title to
the suit land by adverse possession. Accordingly, it is
contended that section 13(a)(i) is not applicable and Civil
Court will have jurisdiction to decide the suit instituted
by the appellants.
It has been already noticed that the learned
Subordinate Judge transferred the suit to the Assistant
Collector on a finding that the controversy between the
parties related to the question as to whether the suit land
was excluded from the ambit of shamilat deh, as defined in
section 2(g) of the Act. The said finding of the learned
Subordinate Judge has not been challenged either before the
High Court or in the special leave petition. In our view,
therefore, the Civil Court will have no jurisdiction to try
the suit instituted by the appellants involving the decision
on the question as contained in section 13(a)(i) of the Act.
Even assuming that section 13(a)(i) is not applicable
and that the question to be decided in the suit is whether
the appellants have acquired title to the suit land which is
shamilat deh within the meaning of section 2(g) of the Act,
still the Civil Court will have no jurisdiction
440
to try the suit in view of section 13(a)(ii) of the Act, for
the question would be whether the suit land vests or does
not vest in the Gram Sabha. In the circumstances, we are of
the view that the suit instituted by the appellants cannot
be heard and disposed of by the learned Subordinate Judge,
and the Assistant Collector to whom the suit has been
transferred by the learned Subordinate Judge has
jurisdiction to dispose of the suit in accordance with the
provisions of the Act as amended.
For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal is dismissed.
There will, however, be no order as to costs. The Assistant
Collector is directed to dispose of the suit as
expeditiously as possible.
P.S.S. Appeal dismissed.
441