The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961

Eviction-Question oftitle-Defendents resistedevictionapplication filedbyGram Panchyat allegingthatlandistheproperty ofpropritery bodyofvillageanddoes notvest lfiGram Panchyat -CaseofGram Pacnhyat supported byenteriesof Jamabandi and khasra Gitdawaris - The plea of defendant that ejectmentunder Section7isnotpermissible cannotbc accepted -Casedoes not fallunderSection 13-Abymere oralevidence-Ejectment order passed byauthority belowupheld -Bhartu v.Commissioner, Rohtak, 2001HRR 223D.B:Eviction from Panchayat land -Petitioner foundinunauthorised possessionofPanch'ayatland and wasordered tobe evicted-Petitioner failed to provebymaterial evidencethat hehadashareinShamlat landandportion ofsuitlandwasnot in excess of his share under his possession - Order of Authority belowwarrants no interference inrevision-Priram Singh v. The State of Punjab, 2002HRR22 D.B.Jurisdiction -Shamlat deh -Sections11and13aretheonlyrelevant sectionsfromwhichbar ofjurisdiction ofCivilCourt canbespeltout-Civiljurisdiction isnotbarred ifthe plea oflitigatingparties iswithregard toadecree beingtaintedwith fraud, collusion or misrepresentation of facts or any other such ground -Compdcnt Court asmentioned inGram Panchayat Bathoh Kalan's case 1991PU41refers to aCivilCourt -Ram Paul v.State of Punjab, 1994HRR 650D.S. =1994PU 583.Jurisdiction - Transfer of case - Suit filed for permanent injunctionrestraining defendants from encroaching upon alleged thorough fare - Suitneither ~r exclusion ofland fromShamlat deh nor filedagainst the Panchayat -Case not covercd under Section 13-Bofthe Act as itstwo ingredients are notsatisfied - CivilCourt could not transfer .the case to Assistant Collector, FirstGrade for trial - Order ofAssistant Collector 1stGrade isa nullity-SubedarMunshiRaniv.StateofHaryana, 1979P.L.J.489F.B.Jurisdiction - Shamlat deh - Both the parties admitted that the land indispute wasShamlat deh -Theplaintiffdidnotimplead theGram Panchayat asaparty-Held, plaintiff's suitnotmaintainable inviewofSection 13oftheActeventhough Gram Panchayat was made a party - Bhaggu's ca:>eheld not to beapplicable -Hukma v.Ddulat Ram, 1988HRR 495.The appellants filedaCivilsuitfor declaration that they are the owners ofthe land in the dispute and the respondent/Gram Panchayat had nothing to dowithit-Casewastransferred toACFirst Grade -The Hon'ble H.C. upheld theorder of transfer - Held, in viewof Section 13as substituted by the HaryanaAmendment ActNo.2 of1981,thejurisdiction ofCivilCourts toadjudicate uponanyquestion whether anyland isor isDotshamlat has been taken away-Suitrightlyt~ansferred toACFirstGrade -Babu Ram v.Gram Sabha, 1988HRR 295S.C. = 1988(1)PLR 683, ..#Jurisdiction ofCivilCourt -TheSeniorSubordinate Sub-Judge reversed theorder of the Sub-Judge IInd classwho had granted ,(decree for declaration infavourofthe petitioner againsttheGram Panchayat ontheground that the CivilCourtwasnotcompetent todecidethematter inviewofS.13-BoftheAct-Held,plaintliabletobetransferred totheAssistantCollector 1stgrade foradjudicatio'n-Lila Dhar v.Gram Panchayat, 1984HRR 318.Sec.5oftheAmending Act 9of1992hasamended S.13-Bofthe PrincipalActandtheprovisotothe:;:Ibstitutedsub-sec.(1)isultra virestheConstitution ofIndia asthis proviso laysdownacondition ofdepositing the amount ofpenaltybefore filinganappeal before theCollector -Atleastonerightofappeal againstexecutive fiat is reasonable procedural right .- Imposition of condition fordepositing ofdamages before theappeal isunreasonable anditishitbyArt. 14of