- (1.) This order shall dispose of aforesaid two cases i.e. CWP No.22176 of 2012 filed by Gram Panchayat, Kalinjar and RSA No.4987 of 2012 filed by the plaintiff-appellant (respondent No.3 in the writ petition). Both the proceedings i.e. writ petition and the appeal pertain to the same land. Deenu appellant in Regular Second Appeal filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner and in possession of the suit land and the defendants including Gram Panchayat, Kalinjar defendant No.6 have no right, title or interest in the suit land. The appellant also claimed a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land. The appellant claims to be occupancy tenant on agricultural land in question without payment of any rent. As per revenue record, in the column of ownership 'Jumla Mustarka Malkan' are recorded as owners, therefore, some of them were impleaded to represent the proprietary body in representative capacity. The plaintiff claims that he is in possession for the last more than 60 years and paid no rent except the amount of land revenue and the rates and cesses for the time being chargeable thereon. Therefore, he has acquired propriety rights after coming into force of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952. The plaintiff-appellant asserts that he has never paid any batai to the defendants or their predecessors-in-interest. The land was recorded as owned by Gram Panchayat vide mutation dated 29.07.1991.
(2.) It is also pleaded that earlier he filed a suit claiming ownership against the Gram Panchayat before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Nuh, which was decreed on 22.09.2000. In appeal, the matter was remanded back by the District Collector, Gurgaon to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Nuh. After remand, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade dismissed the suit on 14.03.2003. The appeal was also dismissed by the District Collector on 25.03.2004. The further revision was dismissed on 20.02.2008, however, it was observed that the appellant may seek relief before the competent Court i.e. Civil Court on the basis of judgment Shiv Charan Vs. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue Department, Haryana & others, 2004 138 PunLR 569, wherein it has been held that the Civil Court alone would have the jurisdiction to determine the dispute envisaged in Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (for short 'the Tenancy Act').
(3.) Such suit was contested by the Gram Panchayat. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court was denied. It was pleaded that in earlier proceedings before the Assistant Collector, the appellant averred that he is Gair Morusi tenant on payment of Chakota of Rs.200/- per annum, whereas in the present proceedings, he asserted possession for more than 60 years and that without payment of any rent.;