RSA-1141-2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Jai Ram Krishna alias Krishna Devi CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Rehan, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Neha Jain, Advocate for Mr. K.S.Dadwal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Respondents No.2(a) to (c) proceeded MANDEEP PANNU,J. 1. Present RSA has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2015 passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court, whereby the judgment and decree dated 19.11.20 trial Court was set aside and the Brief Facts 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction, seeking a direction to the defendants to remove the obstruction and encroachment made by them by raising illegal construction over the passage site measuring 3’ bearing Khasra No. 363 (0 situated in the area of Village Barrian Kalan, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur, and detailed in the Jamabandi for the year 2001 2016 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- RSA Reserved on: Date of Decision : VERSUS Krishna alias Krishna Devi and Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Rehan, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Neha Jain, Advocate for Mr. K.S.Dadwal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Respondents No.2(a) to (c) proceeded -.- MANDEEP PANNU,J. Present RSA has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2015 passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court, whereby the judgment and decree dated 19.11.20 ourt was set aside and the suit of the appellant/plaintiff was dismissed. The plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction, seeking a direction to the defendants to remove the obstruction and encroachment made by them by raising illegal construction over the passage site measuring 3’ bearing Khasra No. 363 (0–4), recorded as Gair Mumkin Rasta in the site plan, situated in the area of Village Barrian Kalan, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur, and detailed in the Jamabandi for the year 2001–2002. The plaintiff also prayed that if -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-1141-2016 (O&M) Reserved on:-04.09.2025 Date of Decision : 08.09.2025 ....Appellant ....Respondents HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Rehan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. K.S.Dadwal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Respondents No.2(a) to (c) proceeded ex-parte. Present RSA has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2015 passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court, whereby the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2014 passed by the learned suit of the appellant/plaintiff was dismissed. The plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction, seeking a direction to the defendants to remove the obstruction and encroachment made by them by raising illegal construction over the passage site measuring 3’-3” x 19 karams, 4), recorded as Gair Mumkin Rasta in the site plan, situated in the area of Village Barrian Kalan, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur, and 2002. The plaintiff also prayed that if - Present RSA has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2015 passed by the learned Lower Appellate 14 passed by the learned The plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction, seeking a direction to the defendants to remove the obstruction and encroachment made by them by 3” x 19 karams, 4), recorded as Gair Mumkin Rasta in the site plan, situated in the area of Village Barrian Kalan, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur, and 2002. The plaintiff also prayed that if TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.12 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1141-2016 any other encroachment was found at t passage, the same may also be ordered to be removed. 3. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that he is a permanent resident of Village Barrian Kalan and is competent to file the suit for removal of encroachment fro out during consolidation operations and was left for the common use of the inhabitants of the village in the year 1953 plaintiff and other residents of the approach to their residential houses. 4. It was further pleaded that the width of the said passage was fixed at two karams, i.e., 11 feet, during the consolidation proceedings, and the same has been used accordingly. No inhabitant of the village has any right or authority to encroach upon any part of the said passage, bearing Khasra No. 363, or any other common property reserved for the common use of the village. However, the defendants, without any right, tit encroached upon the passage site to the extent of 3’ plan attached with the plaint, and have occupied the same by raising illegal construction. By doing so, they have narro 5. According to the plaintiff, due to the illegal encroachment raised by the defendants, he cannot bring his tractor repeated requests made by the plaintiff to the defendants to remove the encroachment, they refused to accede. The plaintiff also approached the Gram Panchayat for intervention, but no action was taken. The plaintiff asserted that the encroachment over the passage by the defendants is illegal and liable to be removed, so as to restore 2016 (O&M) any other encroachment was found at the spot on demarcation on either side of the passage, the same may also be ordered to be removed. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that he is a permanent resident of Village Barrian Kalan and is competent to file the suit for removal of encroachment from the common passage in the village. The passage was carved out during consolidation operations and was left for the common use of the inhabitants of the village in the year 1953–54. Since the day of consolidation, the plaintiff and other residents of the village have been using the said passage as an approach to their residential houses. It was further pleaded that the width of the said passage was fixed at two karams, i.e., 11 feet, during the consolidation proceedings, and the same has rdingly. No inhabitant of the village has any right or authority to encroach upon any part of the said passage, bearing Khasra No. 363, or any other common property reserved for the common use of the village. However, the defendants, without any right, title, or authority, have illegally and unauthorizedly encroached upon the passage site to the extent of 3’ plan attached with the plaint, and have occupied the same by raising illegal construction. By doing so, they have narrowed down the passage. According to the plaintiff, due to the illegal encroachment raised by the defendants, he cannot bring his tractor-trolley or car to his house. Despite repeated requests made by the plaintiff to the defendants to remove the hment, they refused to accede. The plaintiff also approached the Gram Panchayat for intervention, but no action was taken. The plaintiff asserted that the encroachment over the passage by the defendants is illegal and liable to be removed, so as to restore the common passage to its original condition. It was also -2- he spot on demarcation on either side of the passage, the same may also be ordered to be removed. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that he is a permanent resident of Village Barrian Kalan and is competent to file the suit for removal of m the common passage in the village. The passage was carved out during consolidation operations and was left for the common use of the 54. Since the day of consolidation, the village have been using the said passage as an It was further pleaded that the width of the said passage was fixed at two karams, i.e., 11 feet, during the consolidation proceedings, and the same has rdingly. No inhabitant of the village has any right or authority to encroach upon any part of the said passage, bearing Khasra No. 363, or any other common property reserved for the common use of the village. However, the le, or authority, have illegally and unauthorizedly encroached upon the passage site to the extent of 3’-3” wide, as shown in red in the plan attached with the plaint, and have occupied the same by raising illegal wed down the passage. According to the plaintiff, due to the illegal encroachment raised by trolley or car to his house. Despite repeated requests made by the plaintiff to the defendants to remove the hment, they refused to accede. The plaintiff also approached the Gram Panchayat for intervention, but no action was taken. The plaintiff asserted that the encroachment over the passage by the defendants is illegal and liable to be the common passage to its original condition. It was also - he spot on demarcation on either side of the It was pleaded by the plaintiff that he is a permanent resident of Village Barrian Kalan and is competent to file the suit for removal of m the common passage in the village. The passage was carved out during consolidation operations and was left for the common use of the 54. Since the day of consolidation, the village have been using the said passage as an It was further pleaded that the width of the said passage was fixed at two karams, i.e., 11 feet, during the consolidation proceedings, and the same has rdingly. No inhabitant of the village has any right or authority to encroach upon any part of the said passage, bearing Khasra No. 363, or any other common property reserved for the common use of the village. However, the le, or authority, have illegally and unauthorizedly 3” wide, as shown in red in the plan attached with the plaint, and have occupied the same by raising illegal According to the plaintiff, due to the illegal encroachment raised by trolley or car to his house. Despite repeated requests made by the plaintiff to the defendants to remove the hment, they refused to accede. The plaintiff also approached the Gram Panchayat for intervention, but no action was taken. The plaintiff asserted that the encroachment over the passage by the defendants is illegal and liable to be the common passage to its original condition. It was also TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.12 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1141-2016 prayed that in case, on demarcation, any further encroachment is found, the same may also be ordered to be removed to avoid multiplicity of litigation. 6. Upon notice of the suit, defendants No. 1 their separate written statements, though raising similar pleas. Preliminary objections were taken regarding maintainability of the suit, non Gram Panchayat as a necessary party, and lack of jurisdiction of the civi 7. On merits, the defendants denied the allegations of encroachment and asserted that the plaintiff has no document to establish any title or right entitling him to file the suit. It was pleaded that the plaintiff cannot take benefit of assumptions and that without any legal basis, he has no possession over any part of Khasra No. 363. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff had not got any demarcation carried out from the revenue authorities nor produced any document to show that Khasra No. 363 8. Defendant No. 3 specifically pleaded that he is not in possession of any part of Khasra No. 363. In the end, all defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. 9. Replication was not filed by the plaintiff. During the suit, defendant No. 1 expired and his legal representatives were impleaded; however, none of them appeared to contest the case. 10. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: 1. bearing Khasra No. 363 to the extent of 3’ plan? OPP 2. prayed for? OPP 2016 (O&M) prayed that in case, on demarcation, any further encroachment is found, the same may also be ordered to be removed to avoid multiplicity of litigation. Upon notice of the suit, defendants No. 1 their separate written statements, though raising similar pleas. Preliminary objections were taken regarding maintainability of the suit, non Gram Panchayat as a necessary party, and lack of jurisdiction of the civi On merits, the defendants denied the allegations of encroachment and asserted that the plaintiff has no document to establish any title or right entitling him to file the suit. It was pleaded that the plaintiff cannot take benefit of ns and that without any legal basis, he has no possession over any part of Khasra No. 363. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff had not got any demarcation carried out from the revenue authorities nor produced any document to show that Khasra No. 363 was abutting his house or passage. Defendant No. 3 specifically pleaded that he is not in possession of any part of Khasra No. 363. In the end, all defendants prayed for dismissal of the Replication was not filed by the plaintiff. During the suit, defendant No. 1 expired and his legal representatives were impleaded; however, none of them appeared to contest the case. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: Whether the defendants have encroac bearing Khasra No. 363 to the extent of 3’ plan? OPP Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP -3- prayed that in case, on demarcation, any further encroachment is found, the same may also be ordered to be removed to avoid multiplicity of litigation. Upon notice of the suit, defendants No. 1 and 2 appeared and filed their separate written statements, though raising similar pleas. Preliminary objections were taken regarding maintainability of the suit, non-joinder of the Gram Panchayat as a necessary party, and lack of jurisdiction of the civil court. On merits, the defendants denied the allegations of encroachment and asserted that the plaintiff has no document to establish any title or right entitling him to file the suit. It was pleaded that the plaintiff cannot take benefit of ns and that without any legal basis, he has no possession over any part of Khasra No. 363. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff had not got any demarcation carried out from the revenue authorities nor produced any document was abutting his house or passage. Defendant No. 3 specifically pleaded that he is not in possession of any part of Khasra No. 363. In the end, all defendants prayed for dismissal of the Replication was not filed by the plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No. 1 expired and his legal representatives were impleaded; however, none of them appeared to contest the case. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: Whether the defendants have encroached upon the passage site bearing Khasra No. 363 to the extent of 3’-3” shown in red in the site Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction as - prayed that in case, on demarcation, any further encroachment is found, the same and 2 appeared and filed their separate written statements, though raising similar pleas. Preliminary joinder of the On merits, the defendants denied the allegations of encroachment and asserted that the plaintiff has no document to establish any title or right entitling him to file the suit. It was pleaded that the plaintiff cannot take benefit of ns and that without any legal basis, he has no possession over any part of Khasra No. 363. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff had not got any demarcation carried out from the revenue authorities nor produced any document Defendant No. 3 specifically pleaded that he is not in possession of any part of Khasra No. 363. In the end, all defendants prayed for dismissal of the pendency of the suit, defendant No. 1 expired and his legal representatives were impleaded; From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: hed upon the passage site 3” shown in red in the site Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction as TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.12 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1141-2016 3. 4. per the spot and the site plan produced by the defendants is correct? OPD 5. suit? OPD 6. OPD 7. the present suit? OPD 8. 11. The parties led their respective evidence. Findings of the Trial Court 12. The learned trial appointing the Halqa Kanungo as Local Commissioner by order dated 28.11.2013, the Court directed him to demarcate Khasra No. 363 and report the extent of encroachment. The Local Commissioner submitted a detailed report along with t site plan, concluding that defendant Krishna Devi (defendant No. 2) and Rajwinder Kaur (legal representative of defendant No. 1) had indeed encroached upon Khasra No. 363. The encroached area was shown in green (Rajwinder Kaur) and red (Krishna Devi). K demarcation was conducted and that no objections were raised at the spot. 13. On the basis of this report the defendants had encroached upon the p were decided in favour of the plaintiff, granting mandatory injunction. 2016 (O&M) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD Whether the site plan produced by the plaintiff is not correct as per the spot and the site plan produced by the defendants is correct? OPD Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD Whether the suit is bad for non OPD Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit? OPD Relief. The parties led their respective evidence. Findings of the Trial Court The learned trial Court took up Issues No. 1, appointing the Halqa Kanungo as Local Commissioner by order dated 28.11.2013, the Court directed him to demarcate Khasra No. 363 and report the extent of encroachment. The Local Commissioner submitted a detailed report along with t site plan, concluding that defendant Krishna Devi (defendant No. 2) and Rajwinder Kaur (legal representative of defendant No. 1) had indeed encroached upon Khasra No. 363. The encroached area was shown in green (Rajwinder Kaur) and red (Krishna Devi). Krishna Devi herself admitted during cross demarcation was conducted and that no objections were raised at the spot. On the basis of this report and other evidence, the trial C the defendants had encroached upon the passage in question. Issues No. 1, were decided in favour of the plaintiff, granting mandatory injunction. -4- Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD hether the site plan produced by the plaintiff is not correct as per the spot and the site plan produced by the defendants is correct? Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? has no jurisdiction to try and decide The parties led their respective evidence. ourt took up Issues No. 1, 2, and 4 together. After appointing the Halqa Kanungo as Local Commissioner by order dated 28.11.2013, the Court directed him to demarcate Khasra No. 363 and report the extent of encroachment. The Local Commissioner submitted a detailed report along with t site plan, concluding that defendant Krishna Devi (defendant No. 2) and Rajwinder Kaur (legal representative of defendant No. 1) had indeed encroached upon Khasra No. 363. The encroached area was shown in green (Rajwinder Kaur) and red rishna Devi herself admitted during cross-examination that the demarcation was conducted and that no objections were raised at the spot. and other evidence, the trial Court held that ssage in question. Issues No. 1, 2 and 4 were decided in favour of the plaintiff, granting mandatory injunction. - Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD hether the site plan produced by the plaintiff is not correct as per the spot and the site plan produced by the defendants is correct? Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present der of necessary parties? has no jurisdiction to try and decide 2, and 4 together. After appointing the Halqa Kanungo as Local Commissioner by order dated 28.11.2013, the Court directed him to demarcate Khasra No. 363 and report the extent of encroachment. The Local Commissioner submitted a detailed report along with the site plan, concluding that defendant Krishna Devi (defendant No. 2) and Rajwinder Kaur (legal representative of defendant No. 1) had indeed encroached upon Khasra No. 363. The encroached area was shown in green (Rajwinder Kaur) and red examination that the ourt held that and 4 TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.12 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1141-2016 14. The trial court thereafter took up Issues No. 3 and 7 together. Relying upon M/s Indian Others, 2008 (1) PLR 162 (Regulation) Act, 1961 in the Gram Panchayat, but since there was no dispute about ownership jurisdiction of the civil court was not barred for granting injunction against private individuals. Issues No. 3 and 7 were decided in favour of the plaintiff. 15. Issues No. 5 and 6 were also decided in favour of the plaintiff. 16. Consequently, the s to remove the obstruction and encroachment as reported by the Local Commissioner. Findings of the Lower Appellate Court 17. The Krishna Devi and Narain, 2010 (1) RCR (Civil) 972 definition of shamlat deh and only the Collector under Section 7 of the Act, has jurisdiction to order removal jurisdiction was barred by Section 13 decreeing the suit. 18. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court, the appellant notice has been contested only by respondent No.1 Respondents No.2(a) to (c) were proceeded against ex 30.04.2018. 2016 (O&M) The trial court thereafter took up Issues No. 3 and 7 together. Relying M/s Indian Sulphacid Industries Ltd. and Another , 2008 (1) PLR 162, it held that under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’) in the Gram Panchayat, but since there was no dispute about ownership jurisdiction of the civil court was not barred for granting injunction against private individuals. Issues No. 3 and 7 were decided in favour of the plaintiff. Issues No. 5 and 6 were also decided in favour of the plaintiff. Consequently, the suit was decreed, and the defendants were directed to remove the obstruction and encroachment as reported by the Local Findings of the Lower Appellate Court The Lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by defendant Krishna Devi and dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. Relying upon , 2010 (1) RCR (Civil) 972, it held that a public street falls within the definition of shamlat deh and only the Collector under Section 7 of the Act, has jurisdiction to order removal of encroachment. It was held that civil court jurisdiction was barred by Section 13-B of the Act, and the trial court erred in decreeing the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court, the appellant-plaintiff filed the present Regular Second Appeal, which upon notice has been contested only by respondent No.1 Respondents No.2(a) to (c) were proceeded against ex -5- The trial court thereafter took up Issues No. 3 and 7 together. Relying and Another v. Union of India and , it held that under the Punjab Village Common Lands (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’), Section 13 vests title in the Gram Panchayat, but since there was no dispute about ownership jurisdiction of the civil court was not barred for granting injunction against private individuals. Issues No. 3 and 7 were decided in favour of the plaintiff. Issues No. 5 and 6 were also decided in favour of the plaintiff. uit was decreed, and the defendants were directed to remove the obstruction and encroachment as reported by the Local allowed the appeal filed by defendant dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. Relying upon Jai Prakash v. Ram , it held that a public street falls within the definition of shamlat deh and only the Collector under Section 7 of the Act, has of encroachment. It was held that civil court B of the Act, and the trial court erred in Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate the present Regular Second Appeal, which upon notice has been contested only by respondent No.1 – Krishna alias Krishna Devi. Respondents No.2(a) to (c) were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated - The trial court thereafter took up Issues No. 3 and 7 together. Relying and , it held that under the Punjab Village Common Lands , Section 13 vests title in the Gram Panchayat, but since there was no dispute about ownership, jurisdiction of the civil court was not barred for granting injunction against private uit was decreed, and the defendants were directed to remove the obstruction and encroachment as reported by the Local allowed the appeal filed by defendant Jai Prakash v. Ram , it held that a public street falls within the definition of shamlat deh and only the Collector under Section 7 of the Act, has of encroachment. It was held that civil court B of the Act, and the trial court erred in Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate the present Regular Second Appeal, which upon Krishna alias Krishna Devi. parte vide order dated TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.12 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1141-2016 Submissions on behalf of the parties 19. It was argued that the trial court rightly decreed the suit, having correctly appreciated the evidence and rejected the objection of jurisdiction. The lower appellate court wrongly dismissed the suit solely on the ground of jurisdiction. It was emphasized Panchayat was admitted by both parties, and therefore no determination of title was required. The only dispute was between private parties regarding encroachment. Reliance was placed on and Division Bench judgment 20. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1, the only contesting respondent, argued that the trial court wrongly held civil jurisdiction Appellate Court rightly held that s within shamlat deh, the bar of Section 13 applied and only the Collector had power under Section 7 Prakash v. Ram Narayan (2010 (1) RCR (Civil) 972). Findings of This Court 21. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. The sole question before this Court is whether the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a sui encroachment on a passage admittedly owned by the Gram Panchayat. 22. It is not disputed that Khasra No. 363 is owned by the Gram Panchayat and recorded as gair mumkin rasta. It is also not disp encroachment was found by the Local Commissioner. The only question is whether Section 13 of the Act, bars jurisdiction of the 2016 (O&M) Submissions on behalf of the parties It was argued that the trial court rightly decreed the suit, having correctly appreciated the evidence and rejected the objection of jurisdiction. The lower appellate court wrongly dismissed the suit solely on the ground of jurisdiction. It was emphasized that the ownership of the passage by the Gram Panchayat was admitted by both parties, and therefore no determination of title was required. The only dispute was between private parties regarding encroachment. Reliance was placed on Om Prakash v. Tara Chan and Division Bench judgment Bhagu v. Ram Sarup Learned counsel for respondent No. 1, the only contesting respondent, argued that the trial court wrongly held civil jurisdiction Appellate Court rightly held that since the property was a public street, falling within shamlat deh, the bar of Section 13 applied and only the Collector had power under Section 7 of the Act to remove encroachment. Reliance was Prakash v. Ram Narayan (2010 (1) RCR (Civil) 972). Findings of This Court I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. The sole question before this Court is whether the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for mandatory injunction between private parties regarding encroachment on a passage admittedly owned by the Gram Panchayat. It is not disputed that Khasra No. 363 is owned by the Gram Panchayat and recorded as gair mumkin rasta. It is also not disp encroachment was found by the Local Commissioner. The only question is whether Section 13 of the Act, bars jurisdiction of the -6- It was argued that the trial court rightly decreed the suit, having correctly appreciated the evidence and rejected the objection of jurisdiction. The lower appellate court wrongly dismissed the suit solely on the ground of that the ownership of the passage by the Gram Panchayat was admitted by both parties, and therefore no determination of title was required. The only dispute was between private parties regarding encroachment. Om Prakash v. Tara Chand, 2007 (4) RCR (Civil) 597 Sarup, 1985 RRR 353. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1, the only contesting respondent, argued that the trial court wrongly held civil jurisdiction to try present suit. Lower ince the property was a public street, falling within shamlat deh, the bar of Section 13 applied and only the Collector had power to remove encroachment. Reliance was placed on Prakash v. Ram Narayan (2010 (1) RCR (Civil) 972). I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. The sole question before this Court is whether the civil court has jurisdiction to t for mandatory injunction between private parties regarding encroachment on a passage admittedly owned by the Gram Panchayat. It is not disputed that Khasra No. 363 is owned by the Gram Panchayat and recorded as gair mumkin rasta. It is also not disputed that encroachment was found by the Local Commissioner. The only question is whether Section 13 of the Act, bars jurisdiction of the Civil Court. - It was argued that the trial court rightly decreed the suit, having correctly appreciated the evidence and rejected the objection of jurisdiction. The lower appellate court wrongly dismissed the suit solely on the ground of that the ownership of the passage by the Gram Panchayat was admitted by both parties, and therefore no determination of title was required. The only dispute was between private parties regarding encroachment. d, 2007 (4) RCR (Civil) 597, Learned counsel for respondent No. 1, the only contesting respondent, to try present suit. Lower ince the property was a public street, falling within shamlat deh, the bar of Section 13 applied and only the Collector had power placed on Jai I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. The sole question before this Court is whether the civil court has jurisdiction to t for mandatory injunction between private parties regarding It is not disputed that Khasra No. 363 is owned by the Gram uted that encroachment was found by the Local Commissioner. The only question is TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.12 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1141-2016 23. The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act jurisdiction in the Collector or revenue authorities to decide disputes relating to vesting of land in the Gram Panchayat. Section 13 jurisdiction of the determined by the Collector, such as whether land vests in the Panchayat or not. However, where title is not in dispute, and the only controversy is whether a private individual has encroached upon common land, the jurisdiction of the Court is not barred. Civil courts are competent to issue injunctions to protect public rights and to order removal of unauthorized encroachments when such encroachment by one private party affects the rights of other individuals. 24. Shamlat deh or common land is und Panchayat, but it is meant for the common use of the villagers. The Panchayat holds it in trust for the benefit of the community. No private person can appropriate or enclose any portion of such land. If the Panchayat itself is n dispute arises between private individuals where the ownership of the Panchayat is admitted, the jurisdiction of the civil court can certainly be invoked to protect public rights. 25. In Bhagu v. Ram Court clearly held that Section 13 does not oust jurisdiction in every case where Panchayat property is involved. The bar applies only where the lis is between the Panchayat and an individual on questions specified in Section 13. Prakash v. Tara Chand (2007 (4) RCR (Civil) 597) ownership of the Panchayat is admitted and the only question is removal of encroachment, the civil court has jurisdiction. 2016 (O&M) The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act jurisdiction in the Collector or revenue authorities to decide disputes relating to vesting of land in the Gram Panchayat. Section 13 jurisdiction of the Civil Court only in respect of questions that are required to determined by the Collector, such as whether land vests in the Panchayat or not. However, where title is not in dispute, and the only controversy is whether a private individual has encroached upon common land, the jurisdiction of the barred. Civil courts are competent to issue injunctions to protect public rights and to order removal of unauthorized encroachments when such encroachment by one private party affects the rights of other individuals. Shamlat deh or common land is und Panchayat, but it is meant for the common use of the villagers. The Panchayat holds it in trust for the benefit of the community. No private person can appropriate or enclose any portion of such land. If the Panchayat itself is n dispute arises between private individuals where the ownership of the Panchayat is admitted, the jurisdiction of the civil court can certainly be invoked to protect Bhagu v. Ram Sarup (1985 RRR 353) Court clearly held that Section 13 does not oust jurisdiction in every case where Panchayat property is involved. The bar applies only where the lis is between the Panchayat and an individual on questions specified in Section 13. Prakash v. Tara Chand (2007 (4) RCR (Civil) 597) ownership of the Panchayat is admitted and the only question is removal of encroachment, the civil court has jurisdiction. -7- The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act. 1961 vests jurisdiction in the Collector or revenue authorities to decide disputes relating to vesting of land in the Gram Panchayat. Section 13 of the Act specifically bars the only in respect of questions that are required to determined by the Collector, such as whether land vests in the Panchayat or not. However, where title is not in dispute, and the only controversy is whether a private individual has encroached upon common land, the jurisdiction of the Civil barred. Civil courts are competent to issue injunctions to protect public rights and to order removal of unauthorized encroachments when such encroachment by one private party affects the rights of other individuals. Shamlat deh or common land is undoubtedly owned by the Gram Panchayat, but it is meant for the common use of the villagers. The Panchayat holds it in trust for the benefit of the community. No private person can appropriate or enclose any portion of such land. If the Panchayat itself is not a party, and the dispute arises between private individuals where the ownership of the Panchayat is admitted, the jurisdiction of the civil court can certainly be invoked to protect (1985 RRR 353), a Division Bench of this Court clearly held that Section 13 does not oust jurisdiction in every case where Panchayat property is involved. The bar applies only where the lis is between the Panchayat and an individual on questions specified in Section 13. Likewise, in Om Prakash v. Tara Chand (2007 (4) RCR (Civil) 597), it was held that when ownership of the Panchayat is admitted and the only question is removal of - vests jurisdiction in the Collector or revenue authorities to decide disputes relating to specifically bars the only in respect of questions that are required to be determined by the Collector, such as whether land vests in the Panchayat or not. However, where title is not in dispute, and the only controversy is whether a Civil barred. Civil courts are competent to issue injunctions to protect public rights and to order removal of unauthorized encroachments when such oubtedly owned by the Gram Panchayat, but it is meant for the common use of the villagers. The Panchayat holds it in trust for the benefit of the community. No private person can appropriate ot a party, and the dispute arises between private individuals where the ownership of the Panchayat is admitted, the jurisdiction of the civil court can certainly be invoked to protect , a Division Bench of this Court clearly held that Section 13 does not oust jurisdiction in every case where Panchayat property is involved. The bar applies only where the lis is between the Om , it was held that when ownership of the Panchayat is admitted and the only question is removal of TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.12 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1141-2016 26. The reliance of the respondents on misplaced. In that case, the dispute itself was whether the land was a private street of the plaintiff or a public street belonging to the Panchayat. Since title was in issue, jurisdiction was rightly held to be barred. In the pre such controversy. Both the Panchayat. The only question is removal of encroachment. 27. Section 7 of the Act empowers the Collector to remove encroachments when the Panchaya is not a party, and the dispute is between private individuals, the ample jurisdiction. 28. The law is summarised as follows : i) (and revenue authorities to decide disputes regarding title of shamlat deh/common land. ii) admit the land belongs to the Gram whether the defendant has encroached or not, the civil court’s jurisdiction is not ousted. iii) trespass/encroachment, even if the land is shamlat land, because i essentially a question of fact and possession, not of ownership/title. 29. Thus, applying the above principles, the tri decreeing the suit. The lower appellate court misdirected itself in holding that the civil court lacked juris 2016 (O&M) The reliance of the respondents on misplaced. In that case, the dispute itself was whether the land was a private street of the plaintiff or a public street belonging to the Panchayat. Since title was in issue, jurisdiction was rightly held to be barred. In the pre such controversy. Both sides admit that the land is a public passage belonging to the Panchayat. The only question is removal of encroachment. Section 7 of the Act empowers the Collector to remove encroachments when the Panchayat seeks his intervention. But when the Panchayat is not a party, and the dispute is between private individuals, the ample jurisdiction. The law is summarised as follows : The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (and similar state enactments) vests jurisdiction in the Collector or revenue authorities to decide disputes regarding title of shamlat deh/common land. However, where the title is not in dispute (i.e., both parties admit the land belongs to the Gram whether the defendant has encroached or not, the civil court’s jurisdiction is not ousted. Civil courts are competent to grant injunctions in cases of trespass/encroachment, even if the land is shamlat land, because i essentially a question of fact and possession, not of ownership/title. Thus, applying the above principles, the tri decreeing the suit. The lower appellate court misdirected itself in holding that the civil court lacked jurisdiction. -8- The reliance of the respondents on Jai Prakash v. Ram Narayan misplaced. In that case, the dispute itself was whether the land was a private street of the plaintiff or a public street belonging to the Panchayat. Since title was in issue, jurisdiction was rightly held to be barred. In the present case, there is no sides admit that the land is a public passage belonging to the Panchayat. The only question is removal of encroachment. Section 7 of the Act empowers the Collector to remove t seeks his intervention. But when the Panchayat is not a party, and the dispute is between private individuals, the Civil Court The law is summarised as follows :- The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 similar state enactments) vests jurisdiction in the Collector or revenue authorities to decide disputes regarding title of shamlat However, where the title is not in dispute (i.e., both parties admit the land belongs to the Gram Panchayat), but the only issue is whether the defendant has encroached or not, the civil court’s Civil courts are competent to grant injunctions in cases of trespass/encroachment, even if the land is shamlat land, because i essentially a question of fact and possession, not of ownership/title. Thus, applying the above principles, the trial Court was right in decreeing the suit. The lower appellate court misdirected itself in holding that the - Prakash v. Ram Narayan is misplaced. In that case, the dispute itself was whether the land was a private street of the plaintiff or a public street belonging to the Panchayat. Since title was in e, there is no sides admit that the land is a public passage belonging to Section 7 of the Act empowers the Collector to remove t seeks his intervention. But when the Panchayat Civil Court has The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 similar state enactments) vests jurisdiction in the Collector or revenue authorities to decide disputes regarding title of shamlat However, where the title is not in dispute (i.e., both parties Panchayat), but the only issue is whether the defendant has encroached or not, the civil court’s Civil courts are competent to grant injunctions in cases of trespass/encroachment, even if the land is shamlat land, because it is essentially a question of fact and possession, not of ownership/title. ourt was right in decreeing the suit. ourt was right in decreeing the suit. The lower appellate court misdirected itself in holding that the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.12 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1141-2016 30. It is held that the civil court has jurisdiction to try the present suit, as this was the only question involved. The defendants are directed to remove the encroachment as per the Local Commissioner’s report. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Conclusion 31. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present RSA is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 19.11.2015 passed by the Lower Appellate Court are set aside, and the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2014 passed by the trial decreeing the suit are restored. 32. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed off. September 08, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 2016 (O&M) It is held that the civil court has jurisdiction to try the present suit, as this was the only question involved. The defendants are directed to remove the encroachment as per the Local Commissioner’s report. Parties are left to bear their In view of the foregoing discussion, the present RSA is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 19.11.2015 passed by the Lower Appellate Court are set aside, and the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2014 passed by the trial decreeing the suit are restored. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed off. , 2025 (MANDEEP PANNU Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes -9- It is held that the civil court has jurisdiction to try the present suit, as this was the only question involved. The defendants are directed to remove the encroachment as per the Local Commissioner’s report. Parties are left to bear their In view of the foregoing discussion, the present RSA is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 19.11.2015 passed by the Lower Appellate Court are set aside, and the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2014 passed by the trial Court Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed off. MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking - It is held that the civil court has jurisdiction to try the present suit, as this was the only question involved. The defendants are directed to remove the encroachment as per the Local Commissioner’s report. Parties are left to bear their In view of the foregoing discussion, the present RSA is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 19.11.2015 passed by the Lower Appellate Court are ourt TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.12 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document