Gurbachan Singh and Another vs The Gram Panchayat of Mansuha Kalan and Others

S.S. Grewal, J.—This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, whereby, the suit of the plaintiff-appellants, for a declaration, that the Suit land belongs to Doongran Patti, and Nubani Patti, the same is not vested in the. Gram panchyat, and that the same has been wrongly mutated in favour of the Gram Panchyat, has been dismissed It was further pleaded that on the basis of the wrong mutation entries, the revenue entries in the Jamabandis for the years l965-66,l970-71 and, 1975-76, in respect of the land in suit were also wrong. An application for correction by way of making correct entries was made After due verification, the correction of the revenue record was ordered by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Rupnagar, on 30th March, 1977, and again on 27th July, 1977.

The Gram Panchayat prefered an appeal before the Collector alleging that the Assistant Collector bad no jurisdiction, and that the jurisdiction vested in the Civil Court. The revision fled by the plain tiffs before the Commissioner was rejected Consequently the plaintiffs filed the civil suit on the averments that mutation No; 68 did not relate to the land in dispute, and, therefore, by mistake the entries were made in the Jamahandies for the year 1965-66 and subsequent Jamabandies that the land in dispute, is situated in the Nohani Patti, and, that the revenue record also shows, that the land in dispute was never mutated in favour of the Gram Panchayat of the village. Declaration was also sought that the land in dispute was never mutated in favour of the Gram Panchayat, and, the same is not vested in the said Gram Panchayat.

In the written statement filed on behalf of the Gram Panchayat , one of the preliminary objection taken was that the Civil Court bad no jurisdiction in the matter, inasmuch as, the suit related to the Shamlat Deh, which bad already vested, in the Gram Panchayat, and, as such, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit.

Both the Courts below held that the Civil Court bad no jurisdiction to try the present suit.

Counsel for the plaintiff-appellants, as well as, the counsel for the Gram Panchayat were heard.

On behalf of the plaintiff appellants it was mainly submitted that the Revenue Authorities themselves had refused to rectify the mistake in the revenue entries, referred to above, on the ground that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to do so. It was further submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No. 2077 of 1984 also observed that petitioners dispute the title of the Gram Panchayat, and, that can only be done in the Civil Court. Further taking into consideration the statements made at the bar that the petitioners had already filed Civil Suit, which was pending at the appellate stage, the Division Bench vide its order dated 30th August, 1984 observed that the petitioners, if so advised, may seek temporary relief from that Court.

It is quite obvious, that the order of the Division Bench of this Court, referred to above, relate only to giant of temporary relief sought by the petitioners, and, it had not specifically gone into tie question whether the Civil Court actually had, or, had no jurisdiction to decide the question either about the rectification of the revenue entries, referred to above, or, whether the land in dispute had actually vested in the Gram Panchayat or not.

This aspect of the case has been finally settled by their Lord- ships of the Supreme Court in Ram Singh and Others Vs. Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan and Others, . wherein, it was held that the Civil Court cannot make the declaration without deciding the claim raised by the Panchayat, and, hence its jurisdiction was barred u/s 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act. 1984, and that the said question can be only decided by the Collector u/s 11 of the said Act.

In view of the aforecited authority of the Apex Court, the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below do not suffer from any legal infirmity. The plaintiff-appellants, if so. advised, may again approach the Revenue Authorities concerned for declaration whether the land in dispute had actually vested in the Gram Panchayat or not, or, as to whether the impugned revenue entries, referred to above, need rectification. With these observation, this Regular Second Appeal is, hereby dismissed.