JUDGMENT
S.K. Jain, J.
1. Civil Suit No. 142 of 1980, instituted on 8.7.1980 by Ujagar Singh appellant herein against the Gram Panchayat and two others for a decree of permanent injunction restraining them from dispossessing him forcibly from the agricultural land measuring 48 kanals 4 marlas fully described in the plaint and situated in village Ballon, Tehsil Nawan Shahr, was dismissed by the Sub Judge I Class, Nawan Shahr, vide judgment and decree dated 22.9.1981.
2. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred Civil appeal No. 367 of 1981, which was heard and dismissed by the District Judge, Jalandhar, vide judgment and decree dated 3rd September, 1983.
3. It is that judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court which has been appealed against by the plaintiff and which requires my examination of its sustainability.
4. I have seen the pleadings in the suit, evidence adduced by the parties in the suit and judgments of both the courts below.
5. The case of the appellant was that he was right-holder in village Ballon. The suit land was owned by the proprietors of the village and he being one of the proprietors was cosharer and was in possession of the suit property in that capacity. The respondents wanted to forcibly dispossess him and hence, the suit. Defendant No. 3 died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives were not brought on the record. Defendant no. 2 absented despite service and was, therefore, proceeded against exparte. The case of defendant no. 1 in his written statement was that the land fell within the definition of ‘Shamlat Deh’ as defined in Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as ‘the Act’) and had therefore, vested in the Gram Panchayat and hence the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The parties fought litigation only on one issue i.e. “whether the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit ? “. The learned trial Court in its judgment found that in the jamabandi for the year 1978-79 the suit land has been shown to be owned by the proprietors of the village according to their shares in the khewat. In khasra girdawari Ex. P. 2 the Panchayat Deh is shown to be in possession till Rabbi, 1978 whereas the appellant is shown to be in possession with effect from Kharif 1979, but in view of the fact that question involved being as to whether the suit land vested in the Gram Panchayat or not, the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, it having been hit by the provision of Section 13 of the Act. Resultantly he had dismissed the suit.
6. The lower Appellate Court vide para no. 10 of its judgment has-recorded a finding that the suit was against the Gram Panchayat and the Civil Court was required to adjudicate as to whether the land in dispute was or was not part of ‘Shamlat Deh’. Therefore, it had no jurisdiction to try the suit.
7. Concededly, the dispute in the suit was as to whether the land in dispute vested in the Gram Panchayat according to the provision of Section 4(2) of the Act or it vested in the proprietory body of the village. As found by the courts below, in the jumabandi for the year 1978-79 Ex. D1 entry in the column of ownership Jumla Malkan Hasab Rasad Rakba Khewat but in the column of possession, Gram Panchayat has been shown. Khasra Girdawari from Sauni, 1974 to Harri, 1979 shows that the suit land remained in possession of the Gram Panchayat throughout except khasra nos. 4/2 and 7/1 of Reel No. 34. It was shown in possession of the appellant in Harri, 1978. Again in 1980 the entire land has been shown in possession of Ujagar Singh appellant. On the basis of the said evidence the courts below have rightly held that the land in dispute was part of the common land of the village and it had vested in the Gram Panchayat in view of the provisions of Section 2(g) read with Section 4 of the Act on its commencement on 4th May, 1961.
Section 4 of the Act reads as under:
“4. Vesting of rights in Panchayat and non-proprietors.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the lime being in force or in any agreement, instrument, custom or usage or any decree or order of any court or other authority, all rights, title and interest whatever in the land:-
(a) which is included in the shamilat deh of any village and which has not vested in a Panchayat under the Shamilat law shall at the commencement of this Act vest in a Panchayat constituted for such village and where no such Panchayat has been constituted for such village, vest in the Panchayat on such date as a Panchayat having jurisdiction over that village is constituted;
(b) which is situated within or outside the abadi deh of a village and which is under the house owned by a non-proprietor, shall, on the commencement of shamilat law, be deemed to have been vested in such non-proprietor.
(2) Any land which is vested in a Panchayat under the Shamilat law shall be deemed to have been vested in the Panchayat under this Act.
(3) Nothing contained in clause (a) of Sub-section (1) and in Sub-section (2) shall affect or shall be deemed ever to have affected the :-
(i) existing rights, title or interests of persons, who though not entered as occupancy tenants in the revenue records are accorded a similar status by custom or otherwise, such as Dholidars, Bhondedars, Butimars, Basik-huopahus, Saunjidars, Mugarrirdars;
(ii) rights of persons in cultivating possession of shamilat deh for more than twelve years immediately proceeding the commencement of this Act without payment of rent or by payment of charges not exceeding the land revenue and cesses payable thereon.
(iii) rights of a mortgagee to whom such land is mortgaged with possession before the 26th January, 1950.”
It is not the case of the plaintiff-appellant that he was cultivating the land for more than twelve years immediately preceding the commencement of the Act without payment of rent or by payment of charges not exceeding the land revenue and cesses payable thereon. Therefore the case in hand is not covered under Section 4(3) (iii) of the Act. The question herein essentially being as to whether the land in dispute vested or did not vest in the Gram Panchayat, both the courts below have rightly held that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the provisions of Section 13 of the Act.
8. The above said concurrent findings of the courts below cannot be faulted. The well reasoned judgment of the lower Appellate Court which has been impugned by the appellant in this regular second appeal is, hereby, affirmed. Consequently, this appeal fails which be and is, hereby, dismissed. However, parties are left to bear their own costs.