Azad and Others Vs. Dharampal and Other
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 3667 of 1986
Petitioner: Azad and Others
Respondent: Dharampal and Other
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 3667 of 1986
Judges: N.P. SINGH & S.B. MAJMUDAR , JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 11, 1996
Head Note:
TENANCY LAWS
Haryana Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1972
Sec. 26(1)(b) – Bar of jurisdiction – Declaration of surplus land in 1960 – Allotment in 1980 – Suit by LRs of original land-holder against allotment. Held that the suit was clearly barred by Section 26(1)(b) and was not maintainable. ( Para 4 ,5 )
Haryana Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1972
Sec. 26(1)(b) – Bar of jurisdiction – Declaration of surplus land in 1960 – Allotment in 1980 – Suit by LRs of original land-holder against allotment. Held that the suit was clearly barred by Section 26(1)(b) and was not maintainable. ( Para 4 ,5 )
JUDGEMENT:
1. The appellants are the allottees of the lands which had been declared surplus in the year 1960 under the provisions of the Pepsu Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act , 1955. The plaintiffs-respondents ( hereinafter referred to ” respondents ” ) are the heirs of the original landholder Ganga Sahai who died on 17-5-1967 .
2 . It appears that the State Government allotted the lands in question in the year 1980 to the appellants treating them as landless . In the same year a suit was filed on behalf of the respondent , alleging that the declaration of the lands as surplus was not complete because the said lands had not been utilised and as such no allotment could have been made in favour of the ap-pellants . That suit was decreed by the trial court . The High Court dismissed the second appeal filed on behalf of the appell-ants .
3 . In this appeal the judgment and decree of the trial court , court of appeal and the High Court have been challenged .
4 . It was urged on behalf of the appellants that civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in question filed on behalf of the respondents , in view of Section 26(1)(b) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act , 1972 which is as follows :
” 26 . Bar of jurisdiction . – (1) No civil court shall have jurisdiction to-
(a) entertain or proceed with a suit for specific perfor-mance of a contract for transfer of land which effects the right of the State Government to the surplus area under this Act ; or
(b) settle , decide or deal with any matter which is under this Act required to be settled , decided or dealt with by the Financial Commissioner , the Collector or the Prescribed Author-ity . “
(2) No order of the Financial Commissioner , the Commission-er , the Collector or the prescribed authority made under or in pursuance of this Act shall be called in question in any court . “
The bar of the jurisdiction of the civil court has been consid-ered by this Court from time to time and recently it has been examined in the case of Shiv Kumar Chadha v.Municipal Corpn. of Delhi1 by a Bench of three Judges JT 1993 (3) SC 238 .
5 .According to us in view of clear bar proscribed by Section 26(1)(b) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act , 1972 the suit filed on behalf of the respondents was not maintainable . Accordingly , we allow this appeal and dismiss the suit filed on behalf of the respondents . There shall be no order as to costs .
6 . We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim made on behalf of the respondents .
2 . It appears that the State Government allotted the lands in question in the year 1980 to the appellants treating them as landless . In the same year a suit was filed on behalf of the respondent , alleging that the declaration of the lands as surplus was not complete because the said lands had not been utilised and as such no allotment could have been made in favour of the ap-pellants . That suit was decreed by the trial court . The High Court dismissed the second appeal filed on behalf of the appell-ants .
3 . In this appeal the judgment and decree of the trial court , court of appeal and the High Court have been challenged .
4 . It was urged on behalf of the appellants that civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in question filed on behalf of the respondents , in view of Section 26(1)(b) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act , 1972 which is as follows :
” 26 . Bar of jurisdiction . – (1) No civil court shall have jurisdiction to-
(a) entertain or proceed with a suit for specific perfor-mance of a contract for transfer of land which effects the right of the State Government to the surplus area under this Act ; or
(b) settle , decide or deal with any matter which is under this Act required to be settled , decided or dealt with by the Financial Commissioner , the Collector or the Prescribed Author-ity . “
(2) No order of the Financial Commissioner , the Commission-er , the Collector or the prescribed authority made under or in pursuance of this Act shall be called in question in any court . “
The bar of the jurisdiction of the civil court has been consid-ered by this Court from time to time and recently it has been examined in the case of Shiv Kumar Chadha v.Municipal Corpn. of Delhi1 by a Bench of three Judges JT 1993 (3) SC 238 .
5 .According to us in view of clear bar proscribed by Section 26(1)(b) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act , 1972 the suit filed on behalf of the respondents was not maintainable . Accordingly , we allow this appeal and dismiss the suit filed on behalf of the respondents . There shall be no order as to costs .
6 . We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim made on behalf of the respondents .
