Holding

A civil court lacks jurisdiction to decide the suit because the question of whether the land is shamlat deh must be determined by the Collector under section 11, and section 13 bars civil courts from entertaining such matters.

Summary

The petitioners, Ram Singh and others, filed a civil suit under Order 1 Rule 8 of the CPC seeking a declaration that they were the owners and possessors of certain land and that the Gram Panchayat had no right over it, alleging that revenue records wrongly showed the land as Panchayat property. The Panchayat contended that the land formed part of the village’s shamlat deh and that, under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, only the Collector could determine such a claim, rendering the civil court without jurisdiction. The trial court held it could entertain the suit because the issue was merely one of title, but the Punjab and Haryana High Court reversed, holding that the suit required a determination of whether the land was shamlat deh, which is barred by section 13 of the Act. On special leave, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s view, observing that the plaintiffs deliberately avoided seeking a declaration that the land was not shamlat deh and therefore could not confer jurisdiction on the civil court. The Court emphasized that any question of shamlat status must be decided by the Collector under section 11, and orders of the Collector or Commissioner are final under section 12. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for declaration of title and possession of land alleged to be shamlat deh under sections 11‑13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.
Whether the plaintiff can circumvent the jurisdictional bar by not expressly seeking a declaration that the land is not shamlat deh.
Interpretation of the bar of jurisdiction in section 13 of the Act in view of the 1976 amendment.

Legislation cited

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961s. 11, s. 12, s. 13

Subjects

civil court jurisdictionshamlat dehPunjab Village Common Lands Actland title suitcollector jurisdictionbar of jurisdictionspecial leave petition

Judgment

A

RAM SINGH & ORS.
v.
GRAM PANCHAYAT MEHAL KALAN & ORS.
B
SEPTEMBER 22, 1986

[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND V. KHALID, JJ.]

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961: ss. 11-13-
, ~ · Suit against Panchayat seeking declaration and possession of sham/at
,~--) • deh-Correctness of entries in revenue records-Whether Civil Court
c
. has jurisdiction. . ·

Civil Procedure Code, 0.1., R. &-Civil Suit for declaration/pos-
-..,,,
I
session of Shamlatdeh lands-Not maintainable.
D
Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation)
Act, 1961 conferred jurisdiction on the Collector to decide cases of
persons claiming ·right, title or interest in any land vested or deemed to
have been vested in a Panchayat, or claiming that any land has not so
vested in a Panchayat and against such order an appeal was provided to
the Commissioner. Under s. 12 every order of the Collector or Commis- 'E
sioner was final and such order could not be called in question in any
Court by way of appeal or revision or in any original suit, application or
execution proceedings. Section 13 of the Act provided that no civil court
shall have jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate upon any question
whether any property or any right to or interest in any property is or is
not shamlat deb vested or deemed to have been vested in a Panchayat F
undei: the Act.

>.. The petitioners instituted a civil suit under 0.1, r. 8 of the Code of
Civil Procedure for a declaration that they were the owners in posses-
sion of the suit land, that the GFam Panchayat had no sort of right in the
suit land, that the suit land had been wrongly shown as belonging to the G
Panehayat by entries made in the revenue records which were not bind-
ing on the plaintiffs, and for an injunction restraining the Pancbayat
from interfering with their possession. The respondent-Panchayat con-
,tended in its written statement that the civil court had no jurisdiction to
try the suit by virtue of the provisions of s. 13 of the Act. The trial
court, however held that since the question involved in the suit was H

831
832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11986] 3 S.C.R.

A simply one of title to the suit land and it was not necessary to decide
whether the suit land was shamlat deh or not and whether the land had
validly vested in the Panchayat or not being sbamlat deb, it had juris-
diction to try the suit. :;I•

Allowing the revision petition of the Panchayat the High Court
8 held that the suit was not maintainable before the Civil Court since the
issues involved in it were not triable by such court by virtne of s. 11 read
withs. 13ofthe Act. •

Dismissing the appeal by special leave, the Court,

c HELD: The High Court was right in holding that the suit was uot
maintainable before the civil court. The plaintiffs who claimed to be the
owners of the suit land had avoided to seek a declaration that the suit
land was not shamlat deb. They cannot by drawing their plaint cleverly
be not clainting a declaration that the land in question was not shamlat
deb confer jurisdiction on the civil court when by virtue of the Act the
D jurisdiction of civil court to try such suits had been taken away. The suit
had been filed against the Panchayat and the Panchayat had raised the
plea that the suit land was a part of the shamlat deh and that the
plaintiffs had no right or title to it. The civil court cannot make a
declaration in favour of the plaintiffs without deciding the question
whether the pi;operty in question was shamlat deb or not and whether it
E belonged to the Pancl)ayat or not. That question has to be decided by
the Collector only under section 11 of the Act and not by the civil
court. l835H; 836A-C; 836G I

Bhagu& Ors. v.Ram Sarup & Ors., 11985] P.L.J. 366,distinguished. ..,£
I
F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No. 7309 of 1986 J...
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.4.1986 of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No. 571of1986.

Harbans Lal and G.K. Bansal for the Petitioners.
G
The Order of the Court was delivered by
VENKATARAMIAH, J. The petitioners were plaintiffs. They
instituted a suit in a representative capacity under Order 1 rule 8 of the
Code of Civil Procedure in the Court of the Additional Senior Sub-
H Judge, Barnala for a declaration that they were the owners in posses-
RAM SINGH v. GRAM PANCHA Y AT [VENKATARAMIAH) 833

sion of the suit land along with some others, that the Gram Panchayat, A
Mehal Kalan, Tehsil Bamala, District Sangrur in the State of Punjab
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Panchayat') bad no sort of right in the
suit land and that the suit land had been wrongly shown as belonging to
the Panchayat by the entries made in the revenue records which were
not binding on the plaintiffs and for an 'injunction restraining the
B
Panchayat from interfering their possession. The Panchayat in the
course of its written statement inter alia pleaded that the Court before
which the suit had been instituted had no jurisdiction to'try it by virtue
of the provisions of section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands
(Regulation) Act, 1961 (Punjab Act No. 18 of 1961) (hereinafter refer-
red to as 'the Act'). The trial court framed an issue relating to its
jurisdiction and tried it as a preliminary issue. It held that since the c
question involved in the suit was simply one of tit.le to the suit land and
it was not necessary to decide whether the suit land was shamlat deh or
not and whether the land had validly vested in the Panchayat or not
· being shamlat deh, it had jurisdiction to try the suit. Aggrieved by the
said finding recorded by the trial court, the Panchayat filed a revision
petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Revi- D
sion Petition No. 571of1986. The learned Judge who heard the Revi-
sion petition came to the conclusion that the issues involved in the suit
were not triable by a civil court by virtue of section 11 read with
section 13 of the Act and accordingly he held that the suit was not
maintainable before the civil court. The plaintiffs have preferred this
petition before this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of E
India requ~sting the f'0urt to grant leave to prefer an appeal against
the decision of the High Court.

Section 2(g) of the Act defines the expression 'Shamlat deb' as
under:
F
"2(g) 'shamlat deb' includes-

(1) lands described in the revenue records as shamlat deh
excluding abadi deb;

(2) shamlat tikkas; G

(3) lands described in the revenue records as shamlat,
tarafs, patties, pannas and tholas and used according to
revenue records for the benefit of the village community or
a part thereof or for common purposes of the villages;
H
834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 3 S.C.R.
A
(4) lands used or reserved for the benefit of village com-
munity including streets lanes, playgrounds, ·schools, drink- J..•
ing wells, or ponds within abadi deh or gorah deh; and

(5) lands in any village described as ban jar qadim and used
B
for common purposes of the village according to revenue
records:

Provided that shamlat deh at least to the extent of
twenty-five per cent of the total area of the village does not
exist in the village; ...................... "
c
The Act was amended by the Pun jab Village Common Lands
(Regulation) (Amendment) Act, 1976. Section 7 of the above Amend-
ing Act substituted the original sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Act by
' new sections. After the amendment sections 11, 12 and 13 read as
follows:
D
"11. Decision of claims of right, title or interest in shamlat
deh.-(1) Any person claiming right, title or interest in
any land vested or deemed to have been vested in a
Panchayat under this Act, or claiming that any land has not
so vested in a Panchayat, may submit to the Collector,
E within such time as may be prescribed, a statement of his
claim in writing and signed and verified in the prescribed
manner and the Collector shall have jurisdiction to decide
such claim in such manner as may be prescribed. ·

(2) Any person or a Panchayat aggrieved by an order
F of the Collector made under sub-section ( 1) may, within
sixty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal to
the Commissioner in such form and manner· as may be
prescribed and the Commissioner may after hearing the
appeal, confirm, very or reverse the order appealed fron1
and may pass such order as he deems fit.
G
12. Finality .of orders.-Save as ptherwise expressly pro-
vided in this Act, ·every order made by the Collector or the
Commissioner shall be final and shall not be called in ques-
tion in any court by way of appeal or revision or in any
original suit, application or execution proceedings.
H
RAM SINGH v. GRAM PANCHAYAT [VENKATARAMIAH) 835

13. Bar of jurisdiction of civil courts.-No civil court shall have A
jurisdiction-

(a) to entertain or adjudicate upon any question
whether any property or any right to or interest in any
property or is not shamlat deh vested or deemed to B
have been vested in a Panchayat under this Act; or

(b) to question the legality of any action taken by the
Commissioner or the Collector or the Panchayat under

r '
this Act; or

(c) in respect of any matter which the Commissioner
or the Collector is empowered by or under this Act to
c
determine" ·

Section 11 of the Act provides that any person claiming right,
title or interest in any land vested or deemed to have been vested in a
D
Panchayat under the Act, or claiming that any land has not so vested in
a Panchayat, may submit to the Collector, within such tiine as may be
prescribed, a statement of his claim in writing and signed and verified
in the prescribed manner and that the Collector shall have jurisdiction
to decide such claim in such manner as may be prescribed. Any person
aggrieved by the decision of the Collector is entitled to prefer an
E
appeal to the Commissioner. Under section 12 of the Act every order
made by the Collector or by the Commissioner, as the case may be is
final save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act and such order
cannot be cal.led in question in any court by way of appeal or revision
or in any original suit, application or execution proceedings. Section
··~ .. 13 of the Act provides that" no civil court shall have jurisdiction to
I
entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether any property or any F

J.. right to or any interest in any property is or is not shamlat deh vested
or deemed to have been vested in a Panchayat under the Act or to
question the legality of any action taken by the Commissioner or the
Collector or the Panchayat under the Act or in respect of any matter
which the Commission or the Collector is empowered by or under the
G
Act te> determine. The contention of the Panchayat before the trial
court was that the land in question was shamlat deh and it had been
vested in it.

It is no doubt true that the plaintiffs who claimed to ·be the
owners along with some others of the suit land had avoided to seek a H
836 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 3 S.C.R.

A declaration that the suit land was not sham lat deh. They had, however,
questioned the correctness of the entries in the revenue records which
showed that the Panchayat was entitled to the suit land. The plaintiffs
cannot by drawing their plaint cleverly by not claiming a declaration
that the land in question was not shamlat deh confer jurisdiction on the
civil court when by virtue of section 13 of the Act the jurisdiction of
B civil .courts to try such suits had b~en taken away. In the instant case
the suit had been filed against the Panchayat and the Panchayat had
expressly claimed that the land in question belonged to it as shamlat
deh. It will not be possible in the circumstances for the civil court to
make a declaration in favour of the plaintiffs without deciding the
question whether the property in question was shamlat deh or not and
c whether it belonged to the Panchayat or not. Reliance was however
placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on a decision of the
Punjab and Haryana High Court in Bhagu and Ors., v. Ram Sarup and
Ors., [1985] Punjab Law Journal Page 366 in which the suit had been
held to be maintainable in a civil court even though the defendant had
contended that the land involved in that suit was shamlat deb. The
D High Court found that plaintiff in that case had only stated in the
plaint that the land in question was 'Gali Sheh-re-aam' or a through-
fare belonging to the Gram Panchayat which was being used by the
plaintiff as an approach to his house for about 30 years and had prayed
for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his
right. The Gram Panchayat in question had not been impleaded as a
E defendant. The plaintiff in that case had not claimed that the suit land
belonged to him or that it did not belong to the Gram Panchayat. The
crucial issue which had been framed in that case was whether the land
in question over which the plaintiff had asserted his right was a street
or not and whether the defendant had blocked the said street. The
High Court held in the circumstances of that suit that the jurisdiction
F of the civil court had not been taken away by virtue of section 13 read
with sections 13A and 13B of the Aci which had been inserted by the
Haryana Legislature into the Act. We are of the view.that the above
decision is clearly distinguishable from the present case since in this
case the Panchayat which had been impleaded as a defendant had
raised the plea that the suit land was a part of shamlat deh and that the
G plaintiffs had no right or title in it. This question has to be decided by
the Collector only under section 11 of the Act and not by the Civil
court. We do not, therefore, find any ground to interfere with the
judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana against _which this
petition is filed. The petition is dismissed.

H P.S.S. Petition dismissed.