Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amar Singh And Anr vs Gram Panchayat Dhana Kalan And Anr on 21 March, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042014
CR-7554-2016 (O&M) 1 2024:PHHC:042014
118 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-7554-2016 (O&M)
Date of decision: 21.03.2024
Amar Singh and another
....Petitioners
Versus
Gram Panchayat Dhana Kalan and another
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present:- Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr.Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate for the respondents
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)
1. The defendant has filed this revision petition to challenge
the correctness of civil courts order refusing to reject the plaint filed by
the Gram Panchayat under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC').
2. In substance, the Gram Panchayat filed a suit for the grant
of decree of declaration that the suit property is vested in the Gram
Panchayat and is being used for the benefit and welfare of the village
community and the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Hansi, the
court of limited jurisdiction, is based upon fraud, collusion,
misrepresentation and without jurisdiction, hence, it is void, illegal and
inoperative. The Panchayat has also prayed for recovery of
Rs.2,64,000/- with the consequential relief of the permanent injunction.
The defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to
reject the plaint, which has been dismissed by the trial court.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042014
CR-7554-2016 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:042014
3. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length
and with their able assistance perused the paperbook.
4. Learned counsel representing the petitioners has made the
following submissions:-
i) The jurisdiction of the civil courts is barred under the
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act,
1961. He admits that this argument was never taken
up before the trial court, however, it goes to the root
of the matter.
ii) The order passed by the Assistant Collector is
appealable under the provisions of Haryana Dohidar,
Butimar, Bhondedar, anti Muqararidar (Vesting of
Proprietary Rights) Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to
as '2010 Act'). He relies upon the judgment passed
by the Supreme Court in Yeshwant Deorao vs.
Walchand Ramchand 1951 AIR SC 16.
5. This Court has considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel representing the parties.
6. At this stage, this Court considers it appropriate to take note
of some facts. Dholi is a special grant given in lieu of the service
rendered for charitable, religious or public purpose. The Dholi rights
can be given by the proprietors or the Gram Panchayat. The persons in
whose favour the Dholi is granted are called Dholidars. The State of
Haryana by '2010 Act' made a provision for vesting of the proprietary
rights in the Dholidar for deciding the rights, Tribunals of limited
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042014
CR-7554-2016 (O&M) 3 2024:PHHC:042014
jurisdiction were created. The ambit of the said Act was challenged,
however, it's validity was upheld.
7. Now, moving on to the issue arising before this Court, the
trial court while rejecting the plaint at the very threshold, is required to
fairly come to a conclusion that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by
the statutory law. The primary jurisdiction vested in the civil courts is
with respect to the civil disputes. However, if the orders passed by the
Tribunals of limited jurisdiction are alleged to be in violation of the
provisions of the Act or in violation of the principles of natural justice,
then, the civil court has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. By a
detailed judgment, a Five Judge Bench of this Court in State of
Haryana and others vs. Vinod Kumar and others 1986 AIR (Punjab)
407, has laid down the aforesaid law.
8. The petitioners have never taken up the objection made in
the first submission before the court below. This Court, while exercising
the revisional jurisdiction, is required to examine the legality of the
impugned order. Hence, it would not be appropriate for this Court to
entertain a new plea on behalf of the petitioner.
9. While filing the suit, the Gram Panchayat has alleged that
the Presiding Judge of the Tribunal has played fraud and the order
passed by the Tribunal is result of collusion between the Presiding
Officer and the defendants. It has also been alleged that the Tribunal has
no jurisdiction to decide such matter. The Gram Panchayat has also
prayed for recovery of Rs.2,64,000/- alongwith interest. In such
circumstances, at this stage, it would not be appropriate to express any
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042014
CR-7554-2016 (O&M) 4 2024:PHHC:042014
final opinion about the maintainability of the suit, particularly when the
points, in issue, taken up in the plaint were debatable. The judgment
passed in Yeshwant Deorao's case (supra) is not in the context of
Order VII Rule 11 CPC. In that case, the Supreme Court was examining
the matter after the evidence had been led and the case was finally
decided by the court.
10. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground to interfere
is made out.
11. Hence, dismissed.
12. It shall be open to the petitioners to pray for framing a
distinct issue before the trial court. Needless to observe that the
observations made by this Court or by the trial court shall not be
construed as final expression on the merits of the case.
13. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
21.03.2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
rekha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
