S.N.AGGARWAL, J. - (1.) THE petitioners had filed a Civil Suit for declaration and permanent injunction that they were the owners in possession of the suit property. They also sought injunction for restraining the respondents from interfering in their peaceful possession and from leasing out the land to any body else and also challenged the mutation of the respondent in favour of the respondent-Municipal Committee. The said suit was contested by the respondents. One of the grounds taken was that the suit land was shamlat land. It was used for the common purpose of the village, therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred by law.
(2.) ISSUE was framed regarding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The learned trial Court came to the conclusion that in view of the provisions of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred. Accordingly, the plaint was ordered to be returned by the learned trial Court vide order dated 9.6.1987. The petitioners filed the appeal. The learned lower Appellate Court upheld the findings recorded by the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 4.6.1988. Hence the present petition. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that it was a suit for permanent injunction, therefore, the Civil Court had the jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court recorded as Isher Singh v. Badan Singh alias Battan Singh and others, 1988(2) R.R.R. 262 : 1988(1) R.R.R. 251 : 1988 PLJ 26. It was held by this Court as under :- "5. As regards possession of the land in dispute, it is an admitted case of the parties because the plaintiff alleged that he was in possession of the land in dispute as an owner, the defendants in reply pleaded that his possession is not that of owner but that of a lessee. Even during trial, Badan Singh Sarpanch stated that the plaintiff was in possession of the land in dispute. On these facts, it is argued by Shri Gur Rattan Pal Singh, Advocate, for the plaintiff that the plaintiff is entitled to injunction to the limited extent that he cannot be dispossessed except in due course of law. This argument of the learned counsel has obvious merit. If under the Act or the Rules framed thereunder, on the expiry of the term of yearly lease, the plaintiff can be dispossessed, it will be open to defendants to dispossess him under the relevant provision or by taking action under Section 7 of the Act or under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973, or under any other provisions of law available to the Gram Panchayat."
(3.) ON the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents was that the petitioners have filed a suit for declaration claiming ownership of the suit land and therefore, it was within the domain of the revenue authorities to determine whether the suit land is shamlat land or not and whether it was vested in the respondent-Gram Panchayat or not. The Gram Panchayat has been converted into Municipal Committee. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat @ Gram Sabha, 2000(1) RCR(Civil) 283 (SC) : 2000(3) PLR 477. It was a case where the Punjab Wakf Board had filed a suit in the Civil Court for declaration that the said Wakf Board was owner in possession of the property as per the jamabandi for the year 1987-88 with all its rights appurtenant as reflected in para 5 of the judgment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under :- "30. In this connection, we may refer to the findings recorded by the Assistant Collector that the revenue records show that the Gram Panchayat is the owner and also that the property in question is being used for common purposes of the Gram Panchayat. We have already extracted the above findings recorded by the Assistant Collector. The revenue records thus showed the land was being used by village community. It is obvious from the definition of 'Shamlat Deh' in Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 that the land in question did not fall within the exclusionary part of definition. Therefore, the land was 'Shamlat deh' and was being used as such as per the revenue records. Thus, Section 13 of the Act would apply and preclude a suit by the Wakf Board." ;