Gram Panchayat Nagar Sabha Dhur vs Gurdev Kaur

J.M. Tandon, J.—The respondents filed a suit for possession of land detailed in the plaint against Gram Panchayat Nagar Sabha, Dhur, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala (petitioner) on the basis of title. The petitioner contested the suit. The trial court framed the issues, including issues No. 7 and 8 which read :

"7. Whether the suit land is shamlat deh, and vests in the Panchayat ?

Whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit ?".

The trial court vide order dated 10th October, 1977, held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The respondents filed an appeal against the order of the trial court dated 10th October, 1977, which was accepted by the learned District Judge, Patiala, vide order dated 7th May, 1980. The operative part of the order of the learned District Judge reads:

"2. The suit was instituted in the year 1971. Our High Court in Gram Panchayat v. Balwant Kaur, 1979 Revenue Law Reporter 96, had observed that the suits which have been instituted before the amendment in the Punjab Village Common Lands Act have to be decided by the Civil Court. As such, the trial court went wrong in rejecting the plaint.

I accept the appeal and remand the suit to the trial court with a direction to proceed further in accordance with law. The parties have been directed to appear in the trial court on 14.5.1980...."

The decision in Gram Panchayat and another v. Balwant Kaur and another, 1979 R.L.R 96 (S.B), was overruled by a Division Bench of this court in Gram Sabha Balad Kalan and another v. Sarwan Singh and others, 1981 P.L.J 311. It was held by the Division Bench:

"The word "adjudicate" according to the Webster''s Dictionary, means to settle judicially and according to Oxford Dictionary, to try and determine judicially. According to Black''s Law Dictionary, to adjudicate means to settle in the exercise of judicial authority or to decide judicially. It is, therefore, evident that on the enactment of the said Section 13, Civil Court has been debarred from not only entertaining the suit but also from passing any judgment upon any question whether land is or is not Shamlat Deh. The conclusion is, therefore, irresistible that the Civil Court ceases to have jurisdiction to pass any judgment even in a pending suit on the said question".

The petitioner approached the trial Court for deciding issues No. 7 and 8 afresh in the light of the decision in Gram Sabha Balad Kalan and another''s case (supra). The trial Court vide order dated 17th January, 1982, held that the decision of the District Judge under issues No. 7 and 8 had attained finality and the application for redeciding the same was hit by the principle of res judicata. The petitioner has assailed the order of the trial court dated 17th January, 1982 in the present revision.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the light of the decision in Gram Sabha Balad Kalan and another''s case (supra), the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to adjudicate the suit filed by the respondents and pending in the trial court is barred. In view of the fact that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit filed by the respondents, the finding of the District Judge that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate is not barred by the rule of res judicata. Reliance has been placed on Rabi Ram and another v. Dalip Singh and others, 1972 P.L.J 264 and Mathura Prasad Sarjo Jaiswal and others v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 2355 : 1970 R.C.R.(Rent) 396.

In Rabi Ram and another''s case (supra), a similar point arose and it was held:

"The short question that arises for determination is whether a decision on a question of jurisdiction can operate as res judicata. There are two types of decisions which relate to jurisdiction. The first type is where a court holds that it had jurisdiction but in fact has no inherent jurisdiction to try a matter and the other type is where a Court acts illegally or with irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. Where the Court acts illegally or with irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction, certainly the decision thereon will operate as res judicata....."

In Mathura Prasad Sarjoo Jaiswal and others'' case (supra), it was held that a question relating to jurisdiction of a court cannot be deemed to have been finally determined by an erroneous decision of that court .

If by an erroneous interpretation of the statute the court holds that it has no jurisdiction, the question would not operate as res judicata. Similarly by an erroneous decision if the Court assumes, jurisdiction which it does not possess under the statute, the question cannot operate as res judicata between the same parties, whether the cause of action in the subsequent litigation is the same or otherwise, because, if those decisions are considered as conclusive, it will assume the status of a special rule of law applicable to the parties relating to the jurisdiction of the court in derogation of the rule declared by the legislature.

The ratio of the authorities detailed above is applicable to the instant case. It has already been stated above that in the light of the decision in Gram Sabha Balad Kalan and another''s case (supra) the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the respondents. Under these circumstances, the finding of the learned District Judge that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the respondents cannot operate as res judicata between the parties. A contrary view taken by the trial court in the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

In the result, the revision is allowed and the impugned order of the trial court dated 17th January, 1982, set aside. The trial court will decide the matter afresh in the light of the observations made above. No order as to costs.

Petitioner accepted.