Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sahabuddin vs Ali Mohammad And Ors on 8 July, 2022
RSA-2068 of 2013(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-2068 of 2013(O&M)
Date of decision: 08.07.2022
Sahabuddin ...Appellant
Versus
Ali Mohammad and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Sunil Panwar, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Ajay Ghangas, Advocate, for respondent no.2 to 8.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)
The appellant before this court is the plaintiff in a suit for grant
of permanent injunction.
Both the courts below have dismissed the suit on the ground
that the plaintiff has failed to prove his ownership though he was found in
possession of the property. Even the defendant's counter claim has been
dismissed. As per the revenue record for the year 1963-64, in the ownership
column, the property is entered as 'Shamlat Patti Ghisa'. The nature of land
is "Gair Mumkin Kabristan(graveyard). The trial court, on appreciation of
pleadings, culled out the following issues:-
"1. Whether plaintiff is owner and in possession of suit
land?OPP
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent
injunction in his favour and against the defendants?OPP
3. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present
suit?OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the
1 of 4
RSA-2068 of 2013(O&M) -2-
present suit?OPD
5. Whether plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit
by his own acts and conduct?OPD
6. Whether petitioner has not come with clean hands?OPD
7. Relief.
On the counter claim, the following issues were framed.-
1. Whether the counter claimants are entitled for a decree of
declaration as prayed for ?OPD
2. Whether the entries in the revenue record qua the suit
land is null, illegal, void and against the provisions of law
and the same are liable to be corrected?OPD
3. If issue No.1 and 2 are proved, whether the counter
claimants are owners in possession over the suit
land?OPD
4. Whether the counter claim filed on behalf of the counter
claimants/defendants is not maintainable in the present
form?OPE
5. Relief."
The property is situated in the area of Gram Panchayat. In the
ownership column, the entry continues to be "Shamlat Patti Ghisa" though
the nature of the land has been changed from 'Gair Mumkin Kabristan' to
'Chahi' (cultivable). This litigation is being fought without impelading the
Gram Panchayat as party. The record of consolidation of holdings has not
been produced to prove as to whether the land was ever reserved for
common purposes i.e. 'Kabristan (Graveyard)' or not. There is no
explanation as to how the land which was originally entered as 'Gair
2 of 4
RSA-2068 of 2013(O&M) -3-
Mumkin Kabristan' has suddenly become cultivable.
The learned counsel representing the appellant contends that
though the plaintiff has failed to lead evidence to prove his ownership, still
the appellant is entitled to an injunction.
As per the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands
(Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 1961 Act'), the
exclusive jurisdiction to decide as to whether the property is 'Shamlat Deh'
or not, vests with the Collector. Section 13 and 13-A of the 1961 Act are
extracted as under:-
13. Bar of Jurisdiction-No civil court shall have
jurisdiction:-
(a) to entertain or adjudicate upon any question, whether
(i) any land or other immovable property is or is not
shamlat deh;
(ii) any land or other immovable property or any right,
title or interest in such land or other immovable
property vests or does not vest in a Panchayat
under this Act;
(b) in respect of any matter which any revenue court,
officer or authority is empowered by or under this Act to
determine; or
(c) to question the legality of any action taken or matetr
decided by any revenue court, officer or authority
empowered to do so under this Act.
13A. Adjuciation.-- (1)Any person or in the case of a
panchayat, either the panchayat or its Gram Sachiv, the
concerned Block Development and Panchayat Officer,
Social Education and Panchayat Officer or any other
officer duly authorised by the State Government in this
behalf, claiming right, title or interest in any land or other
immovable property vested or deemed to have been
vested in the panchayat under this Act, may file a suit for
adjudication, whether such land or other immovable
property is shamilat deh or not and whether any land or
other immovable property or any right, title or interest
therein vests or does not vest in a panchayat under this
Act, in the court of the Collector, having jurisdiction in
the area wherein such land or other immovable property I
is situated :
3 of 4
RSA-2068 of 2013(O&M) -4-
Provided that no suit shall lie under this section in
respect of the land or other immovable property, which is
or has been the subject matter of the proceedings under
section 7 of this Act under which the question of title has
been raised and decided or under adjudication. -
(2) The procedure for deciding [he suits under sub-
section (I) shall be the same as laid down in the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act 5 of 1908)."
The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred to entertain or
adjudicate upon any question as to whether any land or other immovable
property is or is not 'Shamlat Deh'
This court after relying upon the judgment passed by the
Supreme Court in Ram Singh and others vs. Gram Panchayat Mehal
Kalan and others, (1986) 4 SCC 364, has formed an opinion that even an
injunction suit is not maintainable once the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is
barred.
Hence, dismissed.
All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
July 08, 2022 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
nt JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
