Mange Ram vs Dev Dutt etc.

Sat Pal, J. (Oral)

This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 28.2.1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak. By this judgment, the learned Additional District Judge has modified the judgment of the learned trial court and has restrained the respondentpanchayat and other defendants from interfering in the plot of the plaintiff shown by letters ABCD on site plan Ex. P1 except otherwise in due course of law.

Mr. Hooda, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Panchayat has raised a preliminary objection that since it is the clear stand of the respondent Panchayat that the land in dispute belongs to the Panchayat, jurisdiction of Civil Court was barred in view of Section 13 of Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") as applicable to the State of Haryana. In support of his submission the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Singh v. Gram Panchayat Mahal Kalan, 1987 R.R.R. 630 : 1986 PLJ 636.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has, however, drawn my attention to a recent judgment of this Court in Mahinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1997(2) LJR 110.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I do not find any merit in this appeal. It is not disputed that in a case where the Panchayat contends that the suit land is shamlat deh, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under section 13 of the Act. It has been held so by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Singh (supra). The decision in the case of Mahinder Singh (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel of the appellant is, however, of no assistance to the appellant as in that case the Civil Court had decided the title of the parties vide judgment dated 5.12.1977 when section 13 of the Act was not brought on the Statute.

In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.