Lehna Singh v. Gurnam Singh

S.P Goyal, J. — The appellant filed this suit for possession of the site delineated as ABCD in the site plan attached with the plaint claiming himself to be its owner and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing him from using the passage in dispute. Defendants Nos. 1 to 5 denied that the plaintiff was the owner of the land in dispute, or that he has possessory title therein. The State of Punjab defendant No. 6, pleaded that the site in dispute was Shamlat land and had been given to the Government school by the Panchayat through a resolution Page: 46which bears the signatures of the plaintiff as well. The trial Court upholding the title of the plaintiff decreed the suit. On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge held that as the site in dispute was claimed to be Shamlat Deh by the State, the suit was not triable by the Civil Court in view of the provisions of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act. 1961. The decree and judgment of the trial Court was, therefore, set aside and the plaint ordered to be returned to the plaintiff. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff has come up in the Second Appeal.

2. It is evident from the facts narrated above that the Panchayat is not a party in this suit. Even toough the suit may involve a question as to whether the land in dispute is Shamlat Deh or not, unless the Panchayat is a party, it was held by a recent decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Bhagu and others v. Ram Sarup and others, 1985 P.L.J 366. the trial of the suit would not be barred by the Civil Court. In view of this DB decision which is binding on me sitting singly, this appeal is allowad and the impugned judgment set aside. No costs. The case would go back now to the District Judge. Ropar for disposal of the appeal on merits. The parties have been directed through their counsel to appear before the District Judge, Ropar, on October 27, 1986.

Appeal accepted.