Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.17 seconds)
Ram Singh & Ors vs Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan & Ors on 22 September, 1986 cites

Bhagu And Ors. vs Ram Sarup And Anr. on 17 May, 1985

It is no doubt true that the plaintiffs who claimed to be the owners along with some others of the suit land had avoided to seek a 836 declaration that the suit land was not shamlat deh. They had, however, questioned the correctness of the entries in the revenue records which showed that the Panchayat was entitled to the suit land. The plaintiffs cannot by drawing their plaint cleverly by not claiming a declaration that the land in question was not shamlat deh confer jurisdiction on the civil court when by virtue of section 13 of the Act the jurisdiction of civil courts to try such suits had been taken away. In the instant case the suit had been filed against the Panchayat and the Panchayat had expressly claimed that the land in question belonged to it as shamlat deh. It will not be possible in the circumstances for the civil court to make a declaration in favour of the plaintiffs without deciding the question whether the property in question was shamlat deh or not and whether it belonged to the Panchayat or not. Reliance was however placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Bhagu and Ors., v. Ram Sarup and Ors., [1985] Punjab Law Journal Page 366 in which the suit had been held to be maintainable in a civil court even though the defendant had contended that the land involved in that suit was shamlat deh. The High Court found that plaintiff in that case had only stated in the plaint that the land in question was 'Gali Sheh-re-aam' or a throughfare belonging to the Gram Panchayat which was being used by the plaintiff as an approach to his house for about 30 years and had prayed for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his right. The Gram Panchayat in question had not been impleaded as a defendant. The plaintiff in that case had not claimed that the suit land belonged to him or that it did not belong to the Gram Panchayat. The crucial issue which had been framed in that case was whether the land in question over which the plaintiff had asserted his right was a street or not and whether the defendant had blocked the said street. The High Court held in the circumstances of that suit that the jurisdiction of the civil court had not been taken away by virtue of section 13 read with sections 13A and 13B of the Act which had been inserted by the Haryana Legislature into the Act. We are of the view that the above decision is clearly distinguishable from the present case since in this case the Panchayat which had been impleaded as a defendant had raised the plea that the suit land was a part of shamlat deh and that the plaintiffs had no right or title in it. This question has to be decided by the Collector only under section 11 of the Act and not by the Civil court. We do not, therefore, find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana against which this petition is filed. The petition is dismissed.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 14 - Full Document
1