- (1.) THE matrix of the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the instant petition and emanating from the record is that, initially petitioners -plaintiffs -Amar Singh and Bharat Singh sons of Tek Chand(for brevity "the plaintiffs") have instituted the civil suit for a decree of declaration to the effect that they are owner and in possession of the suit land, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining the respondent -defendant Gram Panchayat, Jhulli, from interfering in their rights in the land in question, in any manner. They have also challenged the order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, passed under Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961(as applicable to Haryana) (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"), by virtue of which, it was held that the suit land has vested in the defendant -Gram Panchayat.
(2.) THE defendant -Gram Panchayat contested the claim of the plaintiff, filed the written statement, inter alia, raising preliminary objections of maintainability of the civil suit before the civil court, locus standi and cause of action of the plaintiffs. It was claimed that the Gram Panchayat is owner and in possession of the suit property. Anant Ram had no alienable rights in it and the alleged sale -deed in favour of the plaintiffs is illegal, void and not binding on it. The orders passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, the Collector and the Commissioner, were claimed to be valid and legal. Thus, the Gram Panchayat has prayed for dismissal of the suit.
(3.) FROM the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for adjudication: - "1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the land in dispute?OPP 2. Whether the judgment and decree dated 6.5.1986 is wrong, illegal, against law and facts and not binding on the plaintiff?OPP 3. Whether the orders dated 22.1.1991 and 18.02.1984 are also illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff?OPP 4. Whether the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit?OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands?OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action?OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct?OPD 8. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 9. Relief." However, with the consent of the parties, issue No.4 with regard to jurisdiction of the civil court was treated as preliminary issue. Taking into consideration the entire facts and material on record, the trial Court while deciding preliminary issue No.4 has held that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit and the plaint was ordered to be returned to the plaintiffs, vide impugned order dated 01.05.2002.;