2002 (8) TMI 870 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court u/s 13 read with Section 10-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.
2. Validity of the lease granted by Gram Panchayat.

Issue-wise Summary:

1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court u/s 13 read with Section 10-A of the Act:
The primary issue was whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the respondents challenging the lease of land. The appellant contended that u/s 13 and 10-A of the Act, the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred, and such matters should be decided by the Assistant Collector of the First Grade. The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that the jurisdiction of civil courts is expansive unless expressly or impliedly barred by statute. The Court referred to precedents, including Kamala Mills Ltd v. State of Bombay and Lala Ram Swarup v. Shikar Chand, which laid down tests for exclusion of civil court jurisdiction. The Court concluded that the jurisdiction of the civil court is ousted where the Act empowers a revenue court or authority to determine the issue.

2. Validity of the Lease Granted by Gram Panchayat:
The respondents challenged the lease granted by the Gram Panchayat on the grounds that it violated sub-rules (2) and (10) of Rule 6 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Rules, 1964. The lease was for ten years, exceeding the five-year limit prescribed by the Rules, and the auction notices were not issued as required. The Court examined Section 10-A of the Act, which empowers the Assistant Collector to cancel or vary any sale, lease, contract, or agreement entered into by the Panchayat if it contravenes the Act or Rules, involves fraud, or is detrimental to the Panchayat's interests. The Court held that such disputes should be decided by the Assistant Collector, not the civil court. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restoring the Trial Court's decision that the civil court lacked jurisdiction. However, it allowed the respondents to seek redressal from the appropriate authority under the Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the Trial Court's decision that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The respondents were directed to seek redressal from the appropriate authority under the Act. No order as to costs was made.