http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: BABU RAM & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GRAM SABHA BUHAVI & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT06/04/1988

BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH DUTT, M.M. (J)

CITATION:  1988 AIR 1085            1988 SCR  (3) 436  1988 SCC  Supl.  485     JT 1988 (2)    21  1988 SCALE  (1)640

ACT:      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  or is not Shamilat deh- Shamilat deh  in adverse  possession-Civil Court whether has jurisdiction to determine ownership.

HEADNOTE: %      Section  13B   of  the   Punjab  Village  Common  Lands (Regulation) Act,  1961 inserted  therein by the Haryana Act 34 of  1974 mandated  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 of shamilat deh,  to and  institution of  fresh proceedings  in such   cases   before   the   Assistant   Collector   having jurisdiction over the village.      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 respondent 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 the High Court.      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 deh, and (ii) whether the suit land vests or does not vest in the 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, s. 13(a)(i) was not applicable. 437      Dismissing the appeal,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

^      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 accordance with the provisions of the Act as amended. [440AB]      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  suit instituted  by the appellants involving the  decision on  the question  as contained in s. 13(a)(i) of the Act. [439F-G]      Even assuming  that s.  13(a)(i) is  not applicable and that the  question to  be decided in the suit is whether the appellants had  acquired title  to the  suit land  which  is Shamilat deh within the meaning of s. 2(g) of 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]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDlCTION: Civil Appeal No. 1951 of 1978.      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.      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 Village  Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’.      Section  13B  of  the  Act,  as  it  stood  before  its amendment, provides 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 438 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  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 immovable 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 possession and the respondent Gram Sabha Buhavi  has nothing  to do  with the same. The learned Subordinate Judge,  transferred the  suit to  the  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 shamilat 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 against the same

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

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.      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 1981. 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. Section 4 of Act 2 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           (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,  title or  interest  in  such                     land or other immovable 439                     property vests or does not vest in under                     this Act;           (b)  in respect  of any  matter which  any revenue                court, officer  or authority  is empowered by                or under this Act to determine, or           (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 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.      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 whether  the appellants  have acquired title to the suit  land by  adverse possession.  Accordingly,  it  is contended that  section 13(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  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 decision on the question as contained in section 13(a)(i) of the Act.      Even assuming  that section  13(a)(i) is not applicable

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

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 440 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 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  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. P.S.S.                                Appeal dismissed. 441