RA-RS No.53 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 126 Amit and others Bimla and others CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. for the *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 1. T read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC seeking review of the judgment dated 21.08.2025 passed 2. The 21.08.2025 on the ground that this jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not barred dispute is between private parties, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not ousted. It is argued and, therefore, in view of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is excluded irrespective of whether the placed on the judgment v. Roshan Lal 3. The review impleaded as defendant RS No.53 of 2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RA RSA No. Date of Decision: Amit and others Versus Bimla and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr. Ishnoor Singh, Advocate for the applicants-appellants. *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) This order will dispose of an application read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC seeking review of the judgment dated 21.08.2025 passed by this Court in the instant regular second appeal. The applicants-appellants seek review of the on the ground that this Court jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not barred dispute is between private parties, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not argued that the property in dispute forms part of and, therefore, in view of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is excluded irrespective of whether the lis was between the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in RSA No.2412 of 2018 decided on 04.07.2022 The review applicants further argue impleaded as defendant No.8 in the suit and IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RA-RS No.53 of 2025 in RSA No.2820 of 2025 Date of Decision:02.09.2025 ... Applicants/Appellants ... Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) an application under Section 114 CPC read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC seeking review of the judgment dated by this Court in the instant regular second appeal. seek review of the order dated Court has erred in holding that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not barred by observing that where the dispute is between private parties, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not that the property in dispute forms part of Shamlat Deh and, therefore, in view of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is excluded the private parties. Reliance is by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Samar decided on 04.07.2022. argues that Gram Panchayat was and the bone of contention was under Section 114 CPC read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC seeking review of the judgment dated order dated erred in holding that the by observing that where the dispute is between private parties, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not Shamlat Deh and, therefore, in view of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is excluded private parties. Reliance is Samar that Gram Panchayat was the bone of contention was PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.08 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RA-RS No.53 of 2025 encroachment upon a shamlat deh, for which are already pending, and (supra), the jurisdiction of Civil Court was ousted. 4. Heard. 5. The argument raised by learned counsel for the review applicants that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is excluded where the dispute is with regard to the shamlat deh Village Common Lands Act, 1961 irrespective of the fact that the dispute is raised by a private party against the Gram Panchayat or a private party, is wholly misdirected and misconceived. The reliance on is totally misplaced, as in the said case, the plaintiff alleged the disputed property to be as well as defendant No.2, which was Gram Panchayat of the village. 6. A careful reading of Section 13 crystal clear that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred where the character of the property as one party claims that the property is jurisdiction of the Civil Court stands excluded. The the instant regular second appeal is where the plaintiffs admitted the character of the property as corroborated the with respect to character of the property as was based upon the fact that t the gali, being vested with the Gram Panch RS No.53 of 2025 -2- nt upon a gali, which admittedly was carrying a character of , for which eviction proceedings under Section 7 of the 1961 Act are already pending, and thus, in view of the judgment passed in (supra), the jurisdiction of Civil Court was ousted. Heard. The argument raised by learned counsel for the review applicants that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is excluded where the dispute is with shamlat deh, as per the provisions Village Common Lands Act, 1961 irrespective of the fact that the dispute is raised by a private party against the Gram Panchayat or a private party, is wholly misdirected and misconceived. The reliance on totally misplaced, as in the said case, the plaintiff alleged the disputed property to be a part of shamlat deh; whereas it was denied by defendant No.1 as well as defendant No.2, which was Gram Panchayat of the village. A careful reading of Section 13 crystal clear that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred where the character of the property as shamlat deh is disputed, meaning thereby, where one party claims that the property is shamlat deh jurisdiction of the Civil Court stands excluded. The the instant regular second appeal is where the plaintiffs admitted the character of the property as shamlat deh and the defendant No.8, Gram Panchayat also corroborated the said fact. There was no dispute raised by either of the parties with respect to character of the property as shmalat deh was based upon the fact that the defendants No.1 to 7 had encroached upon being vested with the Gram Panch which admittedly was carrying a character of eviction proceedings under Section 7 of the 1961 Act thus, in view of the judgment passed in Samar’s case (supra), the jurisdiction of Civil Court was ousted. The argument raised by learned counsel for the review applicants that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is excluded where the dispute is with as per the provisions of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961 irrespective of the fact that the dispute is raised by a private party against the Gram Panchayat or a private party, is wholly misdirected and misconceived. The reliance on Samar v. Roshan Lal totally misplaced, as in the said case, the plaintiff alleged the disputed whereas it was denied by defendant No.1 as well as defendant No.2, which was Gram Panchayat of the village. A careful reading of Section 13 of the Act of 1961 makes it crystal clear that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred where the is disputed, meaning thereby, where shamlat deh and other party disputes, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court stands excluded. The lis before this Court in the instant regular second appeal is where the plaintiffs admitted the character and the defendant No.8, Gram Panchayat also said fact. There was no dispute raised by either of the parties shmalat deh and the whole case defendants No.1 to 7 had encroached upon being vested with the Gram Panchayat and in this background, which admittedly was carrying a character of eviction proceedings under Section 7 of the 1961 Act Samar’s case The argument raised by learned counsel for the review applicants that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is excluded where the dispute is with of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961 irrespective of the fact that the dispute is raised by a private party against the Gram Panchayat or a private party, is Samar v. Roshan Lal totally misplaced, as in the said case, the plaintiff alleged the disputed whereas it was denied by defendant No.1 of the Act of 1961 makes it crystal clear that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred where the is disputed, meaning thereby, where the before this Court in the instant regular second appeal is where the plaintiffs admitted the character and the defendant No.8, Gram Panchayat also said fact. There was no dispute raised by either of the parties and the whole case defendants No.1 to 7 had encroached upon in this background, PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.08 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RA-RS No.53 of 2025 sought permanent and mandatory injunction qua said encroachment only, thus, has rightly decreed by both the Courts below. 7. The law is well correction of an error apparent on the to substitute a new decision in place of one already rendered. finds no error apparent on the face of record in the order dated 21.08.2025 passed by this Court, 8. In view of the above, the review petition is devoid of merit. September 02, 2025 Pankaj* RS No.53 of 2025 -3- sought permanent and mandatory injunction qua said encroachment only, thus, has rightly decreed by both the Courts below. The law is well-settled that review jurisdiction is confined to correction of an error apparent on the face of record and cannot be exercised to substitute a new decision in place of one already rendered. finds no error apparent on the face of record in the order dated 21.08.2025 passed by this Court, sought to be reviewed by the applicants In view of the above, the review petition is devoid of merit. (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) mber 02, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable sought permanent and mandatory injunction qua said encroachment only, thus, has rightly decreed by both the Courts below. settled that review jurisdiction is confined to face of record and cannot be exercised to substitute a new decision in place of one already rendered. This Court finds no error apparent on the face of record in the order dated 21.08.2025 sought to be reviewed by the applicants-appellants. In view of the above, the review petition is dismissed, being (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No : Yes/No sought permanent and mandatory injunction qua said encroachment only, settled that review jurisdiction is confined to face of record and cannot be exercised This Court finds no error apparent on the face of record in the order dated 21.08.2025 being PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.08 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh