Holding

The civil court lacks jurisdiction to try the suit; the Assistant Collector has jurisdiction to dispose of it under the amended Act.

Summary

The appellants filed a suit in a Subordinate Court seeking a declaration of ownership over 124 acres, asserting that the Gram Sabha had no interest. The trial court transferred the suit to the Assistant Collector under Section 13B of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, on the ground that the dispute involved whether the land was excluded from "shamilat deh". The High Court upheld the transfer. While the appeal was pending, the Haryana Act 2 of 1981 retrospectively deleted Section 13B and amended Section 13 to bar civil courts from adjudicating any question of shamilat deh or whether land vests in a Panchayat. The Supreme Court held that, in view of the amendment, the civil court had no jurisdiction to hear the suit and the Assistant Collector was the proper forum. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the suit was directed to be disposed of by the Assistant Collector.

Issues considered

Whether the civil court retained jurisdiction to hear the suit after the amendment deleting Section 13B and inserting a bar of jurisdiction under Section 13(a).
Whether the suit, limited to a question of adverse possession, falls within the bar of jurisdiction under Section 13(a)(i) or (ii).
Whether the constitutional validity of Section 13B needed to be examined in light of its retrospective deletion.

Legislation cited

Haryana Act 2 of 1981s. 4, s. 5
Haryana Act 34 of 1974
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961s. 13, s. 13(a)(i), s. 13(a)(ii), s. 13B, s. 2(g)

Subjects

jurisdictioncivil courtvillage common landsshamilat dehadverse possessiontransfer of suitassistant collectorstatutory barretrospective amendment

Judgment

\
\
I

A BABU RAM & ORS.
v.
GRAM SABHA BUHAVI & ANR..

APRIL 6, 1988
B
[RANGANATH MISRA AND MURARI MOHON DUTI, JJ.]

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, . 1961: ss.
13(a)(i), 13(a)(ii) and 13B-Effect of amendment by Haryana Act 2 of
1981 omitting s.' 13B with retrospective effect-Civil Court barred from
adjudicating upon question whether any land or immovable property is
J
~

C or is not Shami/at deh-Shamilat deh in adverse possession-Civil ~
Court whether has jurisdiction to determine ownership .

. Section 13B of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation)
Act, 1961 inserted therein by the Haryana Act 34 of 1974 mandated
D transfer' of all suits pending in any civil court against the panchayat
relating to the question as to whether the suit land was excluded from
the ambit or shamilat deh, to and institution or fresh proceedings in
such cases before the Assistant Collector having jurisdiction over the
village. · -

E The suit filed by the appellants for a declaration that they were
the owners of the land in dispute in their possession and that the respon·
dent Gram Sabha had nothing to do with the same, was transferred by
the trial court to the Assistant Collector under s. 13B of the Act. The
revision,.application filed by them was dismissed by theHigh Court •.

F '· During the pendency of the appeal by special leave in this Court
the .Act was further amended by Act 2 of 1981 deleting s. 13B with
retrospective effect from November 12, 1974. Amended s; 13(a) barred
jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain or adjudicate upon the question
(i) whether any land or other immovable property is or is not shamilat
de.h, and (ii) whether the suit land· vests or does not vest in the
G Panchayat.

It was contended for the appellants that there was no dispute as to
the question whether the suit land was shamilat deh or not. The only
question that has to be decided in the suit was whether the appellants
had acquired title to the suit land by adverse possession, and therefore,
H s. 13(a)(i) was not applicable.

436
BABU RAM v. GRAM SABHA BUHAVI [DUTT, J.] 437
;.
Dismissing the appeal, A

HELD: The suit instituted by the appellants cannot be heard and
disposed of by the civil court. The Assistant Collector to whom the suit
has been transferred has jurisdiction to dispose of the same in accord-
ance with the provisions of the Act as amended. [440AB)
B
The trial court had transferred the suit to the Assistant Collector
on a finding that the controversy between the parties related to the
question as to whether the suit land was excluded from the ambit of
shamilat deh as defined in s. 2(g) of the Act. The said finding has not
been challenged either before the High Court or in the special leave
~ petition. Therefore, the civil court will have no jurisdiction to try the C
suit instituted by the appellants involving the decision on the question as
contained ins. 13(a)(i) of the Act. [439F-G]

Even assuming that s. 13(a)(i) is not applicable and that the ques-
tion to be decided in the suit is whether the appellants had acquired title
to the suit land which is Shami/at deh within the meaning.of s. 2(g) of D
the Act, still the civil court will have no jurisdiction to try the suit in
view of s. 13(a)(ii) of the Act, for the question would be whether the suit
land vests or does not vest in the Gram Sabha. [439H, 440A]

~ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 195 I
of 1978. E

From the Judgment and Order dated 27.4.1977 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No. 869 of 1975.

Harbans Lal and S.K. Mehta for the Appellants.
F
Ashok Grover for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DUTT, J. In this appeal by special leave the appellants have
challenged the constitutional validity of section 13B of the Punjab G
Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, hereinafter referred
to as 'the Act'.

Section 13B of the Act, as it stood before its amendment, pro-
vides inter alia that all suits pending in any Civil Court in respect of any
land or other immovable property wherein relief has been claimed on H
438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I1988) 3 S.C.R.

A the ground of its being excluded from shamilat deh under clause (g) of'
section 2 or on any of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (3) of '1
section 4 of the Act against the Panchayat, shall stand transferred to \
and the fresh proceedings for seeking relief on the aforesaid grounds
shall be instituted before the Assistant Collector of the First Grade
having jurisdiction over the village wherein the land or other immov-
B able property is situate.

The appellants have filed a suit before the Subordinate Judge,
First Class, Kurukshetra, for a declaration that they are the owners of
the land in dispute measuring about 124 acres in their respective pos-
session and the respondent Gram Sabha Buhavi has nothing to do with
the same. The learned Subordinate Judge, transferred the suit to the
C Assistant Collector, First Grade, Thanesar, under section 13B, upon a
finding that the controversy between the parties relates to the question
as to whether the suit land was excluded from the ambit of shami/at
deh, as defined in section 2(g) of the Act. The appellants, being
aggrieved by the said order of transfer, filed an application for revision
D against the same before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The High
Court by the impugned judgment dismissed the revisional application
and upheld the order of the learned Subordinate Judge transferring
the suit to the Assistant Collector under section 13B of the Act. Hence
" this appeal by special leave.

E It is not necessary for us to consider the constitutional validity of
section 13B of the Act, as during the pendency of the appeal in this
Court, the Act was amended by the Haryana Act 2 of 198 L Section 5
of Act 2 of 1981 omitted sections 13A of 13B from the Act with
retrospective effect from November 12, 1974, that is to say, the date
on which they were inserted in the Act by the Haryana Act 34 of 1974.
F Section 4 of Act 21 of 1981 amended section 13 of the Act. The
amended section 13 provides as follows:

"S. 13. Bar of jurisdiction-No Civil Court shall have
jurisdiction,

G (a) to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether

(i) any land or other immovable property is or is not
shamilat deh;

(ii) any land or other immovable property or any right,
H title or interest in such land or other immovable

.•
BABU RAM v. GRAM SABHA BUHAVI [DUTT, J.[ 439

property vests or does not vest in a Panchayat
A
under this Act; .H
,I
f (b) in respect of. any matter which any revenue court,
officer or authority is empowered by or under this Act
to determine, or .~
B
(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."

In view of the fact that section 13B has been omitted with
retrospective effect, the question of the constitutional validity of that
section is no longer relevant. The only question that now arises is c
whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to hear the suit instituted by
the appellants. Section 13(a)(i), as substituted by Act 2 of 1981, takes
away the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain or adjudicate upon
any question whether any land or immovable property is or is not
shamilat deh. D

It is, however, submitted by Mr. Harbans Lal, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants, that there is no dispute as to the
question whether the suit land is shamilat deh or not. The appellants
admit that the suit land is shamilat deh. The only question that has to
be decided in the suit is wheiher the appellants have acquired title to E
the suit land by adverse possession. Accordingly, it is contended that
section !3(a)(i) is not applicable and Civil Court will have jurisdiction
to decide the suit instituted by the appellants.

It has been already noticed that the learned Subordinate Judge
transferred the suit to the Assistant Collector on a finding that _the F
controversy between the parties related to the question as to whether
the suit land was excluded from the ambit of shamilat deh, as defined
in section 2(g) of the Act. The said finding of the learned Subordinate
Judge has not been challenged either before the High Court or in the
special leave petition. In our view, therefore, the Civil Court will have
no jurisdiction to try the suit instituted by the appellants involving the G
1 decision on the question as contained in section 13(a)(i) of the Act.
...
Even assuming that section 13(a)(i) is not applicable and that the
question to be decided in the suit is whether the appellants- have
acquired title to the suit land which is shamilat deh within the meaning
of section_ 2(g) of the Act, still the Civil Court will have no jurisdiction H
-\ I •
440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988) 3 S.C.R.

A to try the suit in view of section 13(a)(ii) of the Act, for the question
would be whether the suit land vests or does not vest in the Gram
f Sabha. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the suit instituted
by the appellants cannot be heard and disposed of by the learned \
Subordinate Judge, and the Assistant Collector to whom the suit has
B been transferred by the learned Subordinate Judge has jurisdiction to
dispose of the suit in accordance with the provisions of the Act as
amended.

For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal is dismissed. There will,
however, be no order as to costs. The Assistant Collector is directed to
dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible.
c
P.S.S. Appeal dismissed.

)