M.M. Punchhi, J. - (1.) This is a regular second appeal by the State of Punjab, claiming that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decree the suit of the Plaintiff -Respondent.
(2.) The facts of the case are that Massa Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction against the State of Punjab, on the premises that he was the owner in possession of a parcel of land situated near the bed of rever Beas, which remained submerged and waterlogged for more than six harvests, rendering the land unlocated and uncultivable. The State of Punjab through its Collector threatened to take possession of the same under the garb of employing the provisions of East Punjab Utilization of Lands Act, 1949 and intended to allot it to someone else, to the detriment of the Plaintiff. After service of the notice under Sec. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the suit was filed. The State of Punjab admitted the ownership and possession of the Plaintiff but denied that the land remained submerged in water or that its boundaries could not even be located. It was countered that the land was banjar kadim and had been legally acquired by the Tehsildar, Batala, exercising powers of Collector under Sec. 12 of the said Act. It was pleaded that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter under the substituted Sec. 14 of the Act. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed: (1) Whether the land in suit was waterlogged and could not be cultivated for six harvests? (2) Whether the boundaries of the land in suit could not be located, its effect? (3) Whether Shri J.S. Bal, Tehsildar, Batala, was competent to acquire the land in suit if so, is not the acquisition valid? (4) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction? (5) Whether a valid notice under Sec. 80 Code of Civil Procedure was served on the Defendant? (6) Relief.
(3.) The trial Court decided issues 1 and 2 in favour of the Plaintiff -Respondent. The land was found to be waterlogged, incapable of cultivation for six harvests and its boundaries incapable of being located. It was found under issue No. 3 that the Tehsildar, Batala, was competent to acquire the land. Under issue No. 4 it was held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. It was held under issue No. 5 that notice under Sec. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was validly served.;