- (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of Senior Sub judge (with enhanced appellate power) Jind, dated August 22, 1978. The appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat was dismissed. Earlier the trial Court on March 9,1976 had decreed the suit filed by Jugti for declaration that he had become owner of 19 Kanals 7 Marlas by adverse possession for a period of 12 years after coming into force of Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act. The suit was contested by the Gram Panchayat, inter alia, alleging that civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The land in dispute had vested in the Gram Panchayat as shamlat deh. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed : (1) Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land for over 12 years and before the coming into force of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act ? OPP. (2) Whether the plaintiff has reclaimed the land as alleged in the plaint ? OPP. (3) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendant ? OPD. (4) Whether the suit is not in proper form ? OPD. (5) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit ? OPD. (6) Is the plaintiff entitled to a decree for declaration as prayed for in the plaint ? OPP. Issues Nos. 1 and 2 were decided in favour of the plaintiff Jugti holding that he had become owner by adverse possession by remaining in possession of the land in dispute for twelve years after enforcement of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act (as applicable in Haryana) and that he had reclaimed the land. Under issue No. 3 it was held that the plaintiff had a cause of action for filing the suit. Issue No. 5 was decided against the defendant holding that the civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. Thus the suit was decreed. The lower appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court.
(2.) The decision of the Courts below on the question of jurisdiction of the civil Court to try the suit is erroneous. Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, as amended by Haryana Act of 1981 with effect from May 4, 1961, reads as under : "13. Bar of Jurisdiction - No civil Court shall have jurisdiction, - (a) to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether (1) any land or other immovable property is or is not Shamilat deh (11) 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 matter decided by any revenue Court, officer or authority empowered to do so under this Act."
(3.) Section 13-C as introduced by Haryana Act, 1981, reads as under "13.C. Finality of orders - Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, every order made by the Assistant Collector of the first grade, the Collector or the Commissioner, shall be final and shall not be called in question in any manner in any Court." Before the amendment of 1981, Section 13 of the Punjab Act was applicable which also barred jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether any property or any right to or interest in any property is or is not shamilat deh vested or deemed to have been vested in a Panchayat under this Act. Since in the plaint Jugti plaintiff claimed adverse possession against the Gram Panchayat it is taken that Gram Panchayat is the owner of the land in dispute as it is only against the true owner that adverse possession could be claimed. The case of the plaintiff in the plaint was that he was in possession of the land in dispute as a co-proprietor and was not in excess of his share in the shamilat deh and thus the land in dispute did not vest in the Gram Panchayat. This plea was refuted by the Gram Panchayat inter alia claiming that the land vested in the Gram Panchayat. No suit relating to vesting of the land in Gram Panchayat or not was entertainable in the civil Court as expressly barred by section 13 referred to above. The Supreme Court in Ram Singh V. Gram Panchayat, Mehal Kalan, 1987 RRR 630, while interpreting the provisions of Sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Punjab Village Common Land Regulation) Act, held in a case where declaration was sought that the suit land was not shamlat deh and thus did not vest in the Panchayat and that the suit was not entertainable in the civil Court. The jurisdiction of the civil Court was barred. Such a question was to be decided by the Collector, under the provisions of the Act. Since Haryana Act 1981 came into force during pendency of the present appeal, still the jurisdiction of the civil Court would be barred. Such a question was raised in two cases in this Court. In Gram Panchayat village Mahu V. Amin Chand, 1984 RRR 441, it was held that the-civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether any land or any immovable property was or was not shamilat deh. In Bhim Singh V. Gram Panchayat village Kharkheri, 1984 RRR 585. the Division Bench, while referring to the provision of Haryana Act of 1981, held that civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the mere fact that amendment of 1981 was made during pendency of the appeal will make no difference. The Court of appeal is also a civil Court and hearing of the appeal is in the nature of re-hearing.;