Roshan Prasad & Anr. Vs. Shiv Pal & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 4303 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 3995 of 1997)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 3995 of 1997)
Petitioner: Roshan Prasad & Anr.
Respondent: Shiv Pal & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 4303 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 3995 of 1997)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 3995 of 1997)
Judges: J.S. VERMA, C.J. & SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.
Date of Judgment: Jul 07, 1997
Head Note:
LAND REFORMS
U.P. Zamindari and Land Reforms Act, 1950
Section 330 (c) read with Land Reform Rules – Rule 285-K, provi-so-Auction-Sale – Setting aside of – Suit for, on grounds of fraud – Maintainability – Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court. Held that a suit of this nature does not fall within the ambits of bar of jurisdiction of civil court and suit is maintainable. Contrary decision of High Court set aside. (para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants filed a suit for setting aside an auction-sale on the ground of fraud. The trial court and the revisional court held, that the suit was maintainable. But the High Court in a writ petition filed by the present respondent took the contrary view that the suit was not maintainable on the basis of Section 330(c) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reform Act, 1950. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
3. A bare perusal of Section 330(c) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 read with the proviso to Rule 285-K framed thereunder, is sufficient to indicate that the institution of a suit in the civil court for the purpose of setting aside a sale on the ground of fraud is not proviso to Rule 285-K. Even otherwise, a suit of this nature does not fall within the ambit of the bar of jurisdiction of civil courts indicated under Section 330 of the Act.
4. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. No costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants filed a suit for setting aside an auction-sale on the ground of fraud. The trial court and the revisional court held, that the suit was maintainable. But the High Court in a writ petition filed by the present respondent took the contrary view that the suit was not maintainable on the basis of Section 330(c) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reform Act, 1950. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
3. A bare perusal of Section 330(c) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 read with the proviso to Rule 285-K framed thereunder, is sufficient to indicate that the institution of a suit in the civil court for the purpose of setting aside a sale on the ground of fraud is not proviso to Rule 285-K. Even otherwise, a suit of this nature does not fall within the ambit of the bar of jurisdiction of civil courts indicated under Section 330 of the Act.
4. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. No costs.
