The High Court clarifies that Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 expressly bars civil court jurisdiction regarding disputes over cancellation of leases of Gram Panchayat land, reaffirming that aggrieved parties must exhaust statutory remedies provided under the Act. The judgment upholds prior Division Bench precedent, maintaining binding authority for disputes involving Panchayat land leases in Haryana.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | RSA/794/2021 of PARVEEN KUMAR Vs GRAM PANCHAYAT VILLAGE DHONS AND OTHERS |
| CNR | PHHC010263042020 |
| Date of Registration | 23-09-2021 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Ms. Justice Nidhi Gupta |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Division Bench judgments in Sajjan Singh v. State of Haryana and Jarnail Singh v. Director Rural Development |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure / Panchayat Land Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes over cancellation of Panchayat land leases, or whether statutory remedies under the PVCL Act are exclusive? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that the PVCL Act (Section 13) expressly bars the jurisdiction of civil courts regarding matters relating to village common lands, including disputes concerning the cancellation of leases by revenue authorities. The only remedy for an aggrieved lessee is to approach the statutory authorities by way of appeal/revision as provided under the Act. Filing a civil suit is neither maintainable nor permissible in such cases. This view is in line with the law laid down in earlier Division Bench rulings. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The High Court relied on the plain language of Section 13 of the PVCL Act, and precedent interpreting Sections 10-A and 13, which provide exclusive remedies and bar civil jurisdiction. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The plaintiff, having taken a lease of Panchayat pond land via open auction, challenged the Deputy Commissioner’s cancellation order, contending lack of notice and jurisdictional error. The State responded that statutory remedies were available and that civil jurisdiction was barred. Both lower courts dismissed the suit holding the same. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts dealing with the PVCL Act or similar statutory bars on civil jurisdiction |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that Section 13 of the PVCL Act expressly bars the jurisdiction of civil courts in disputes involving cancellation of Panchayat leases.
- Affirms that proper statutory remedy (appeal/revision) under the PVCL Act must be exhausted before invoking civil jurisdiction.
- Any suit challenging lease cancellation orders by revenue authorities in respect of Gram Panchayat land will not be entertained by the civil courts.
- Practitioners should advise aggrieved lessees to file appeals or revisions before competent statutory authorities rather than file civil suits.
- The fact that the Deputy Commissioner, an authority higher than Collector, passed the order does not amount to jurisdictional error.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The plaintiff’s challenge to the Deputy Commissioner’s order was rejected as the Deputy Commissioner, being a higher authority than Collector, could exercise the powers under Section 10-A of the PVCL Act.
- The Court held that Sections 13(b) and 13(c) of the PVCL Act bar the jurisdiction of civil courts in these matters and direct aggrieved parties to seek remedy before competent revenue authorities.
- The plaintiff failed to exhaust available statutory remedies by not filing appeal/revision; direct recourse to civil court is impermissible.
- The Bench affirmed previous Division Bench judgments (Sajjan Singh, Jarnail Singh), which interpreted Section 10-A read with Section 13 as prescribing exclusive statutory remedies for such lease disputes.
- The court also noted that the order cancelling the lease was in the interest of the Gram Panchayat, given receipt of a higher bid, and that the initial bid was not even approved by the Director of Panchayat.
- Failure to serve notice under Section 205 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 was also noted as a procedural lapse.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Plaintiff):
- Argued that cancellation of lease was without notice and in violation of natural justice.
- Contended that only the Collector had power to cancel the lease under Section 10-A of the PVCL Act.
- Claimed deposit was not refunded and no compensation was awarded.
Respondents (State/Gram Panchayat):
- Asserted that civil court jurisdiction was barred under Section 13 of the PVCL Act.
- Pointed out that the plaintiff had an efficacious remedy by way of statutory appeal, not availed.
- Urged that the Deputy Commissioner was empowered to act in Panchayat’s interest and had exercised such power lawfully.
Factual Background
The plaintiff was granted lease of a Panchayat pond land via open auction for Rs.75,000 per annum for eight years starting from May 2016. Days after the lease, another party offered a higher annual lease, leading the Deputy Commissioner to cancel the plaintiff’s lease order on 18.05.2016. The plaintiff did not avail statutory remedies but instead filed a civil suit seeking declaration and injunction, which was dismissed by both lower courts. This second appeal challenged those concurrent findings.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 10-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 provides that the Collector may call for the record of any lease entered into by a Panchayat and may cancel such lease for specific reasons.
- Section 13 of the PVCL Act ousts the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters concerning usage, regulation, or cancellation of leases of common village land, channeling all such disputes to statutory remedies.
- The court also took cognizance of Section 205 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, requiring notice prior to suit, which was not complied with.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions were recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or guidelines were established in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment reaffirms settled law and follows prior Division Bench precedent.