Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.7426 OF 2011
Meg Raj (dead)
Thr. L.Rs. & Ors. ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Manphool(Dead) Thr.
L.Rs. & Ors. …Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL No.3145 OF 2019
(arising out of S.L.P.(c) No.9723/2009)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted in S.L.P.(c) No.9723/2009.
2. These appeals are directed against the final
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ASHOK RAJ SINGH
Date: 2019.03.15
17:41:34 IST
Reason:
judgment and order dated 28.01.2008 passed by the
1
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in
R.S.A. Nos.40/1984 & 2712/1987 whereby the High
Court dismissed R.S.A. No.40 of 1984 and allowed
R.S.A. No.2712 of 1987.
3. A f ew facts need mention for the disposal of these
appeals, which involve a short point. The facts are
taken from R.S.A. No.40/1984 which arose out of C.S.
No.24C/1979.
4. The appellants are the legal representatives of the
original plaintiffs and the respondents are the legal
representatives of original defendants in the Civil suit
No.24C/1979 & Civil Suit No.62C/1979 out of which
these appeals arise.
th
5. The dispute relates to 4/5 share in the land
measuring 643 Bighas and 4 Biswas situated in village
Umedpura, District Sirsa, State of Haryana
(hereinafter referred to as “the suit land”). The suit
land was subjected to ceiling proceedings under the
Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (for short,
2
"the Act") wherein the Prescribed Authority had passed
an order dated 17.10.1978 in relation to the suit land.
6. This led to filing of two civil suits by two sets of
persons claiming interest in the suit land. One civil
suit was C.S. No. 24C of 1979 and other was C.S. No.
62C of 1979.
7. So far as C.S. No. 24C of 1979 is concerned, it
was filed by the plaintiffs in the Court of SubJudge III
Class, Sirsa, against the defendants. In this suit, the
plaintiffs sought a declaration that the order dated
17.10.1978 passed by the Prescribed Authority under
the Act is null and void. The Trial Court, by
judgment/decree dated 06.11.1981, dismissed the suit
as being barred.
8. The plaintiffs felt aggrieved and filed first appeal
(C.A.421C/83) in the Court of Additional District
Judge, Sirsa. By Judgment dated 17.09.1983, the
First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and upheld
the judgment/decree of the Trial Court.
3
9. The plaintiffs then carried the matter in appeal
(R.S.A.No.40/1984) against the judgment/decree of
the First Appellate Court in the High Court of Punjab
&Haryana at Chandigarh.
10. So far as C.S. No. 62C of 1979 is concerned, it
was filed by other set of plaintiffs. It was filed in the
st
Court of SubJudge 1 Class, Sirsa against other set
of defendants, though it was also in relation to the
same suit land, which was the subject of C.S. No.24C
of 1979. In this suit also, the plaintiffs sought a
declaration that the order dated 17.10.1978 passed by
the Prescribed Authority under the Act is null and void
but the Trial Court, by judgment/decree dated
15.04.1985, decreed the suit.
11. The defendants felt aggrieved and filed first
appeal (C.A.77C/85) in the Court of Additional
District Judge, Sirsa. By judgment dated 23.07.1987,
the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. The
defendants felt aggrieved and carried the matter in
4
appeal (R.S.A. No.2712/1987) in the High Court of
Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.
12. Both the second appeals were clubbed together
for their disposal.
13. By a common impugned order dated 28.01.2008,
the High Court dismissed R.S.A. No. 40/1984 which
arose out of C.S. No.24C/79 and allowed RSA No.
2712/1987 which arose out of C.S. No. 62C/1979
giving rise to filing of these appeals by special leave by
the plaintiffs of both the civil suits mentioned above in
this Court.
14. So, the short question involved in the present
appeals is whether the High Court was justified in
dismissing R.S.A. No.40/1984 and allowing R.S.A. No.
2712/1987.
15. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
16. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no
merit in these appeals.
5
17. In our considered opinion, the High Court was
justified in holding that both the civil suits were
barred and thus were not triable by the Civil Court in
the light of express bar contained in Section 26 of the
Act. Section 26 of the Act reads as under:
“26. Bar of Jurisdiction – (1) No civil court
shall have jurisdiction to
(a) entertain or proceed with a suit for
specific performance of a contract for
transfer of land which affects 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
Commissioner, the Collector or the
Prescribed Authority.
(2) No order of the Financial
Commissioner, the Commissioner, the
Collector or the prescribed authority
made under or in pursuance of this Act
shall be called in question in any
court.”
18. Mere perusal of the plaint in both the civil suits
would go to show that the plaintiffs (appellants) had
challenged therein the legality of the order dated
17.10.1978 passed by the Prescribed Authority under
6
the Act and prayed that the order dated 17.10.2018 be
declared null and void.
19. Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908
provides that the Courts shall have jurisdiction to try
all suits of civil nature excepting suits of which their
cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.
20. Section 26 (b) of the Act clearly bars filing of civil
suit to examine the legality of the order passed by the
Prescribed Authority under the Act. In other words,
the Civil Court’s jurisdiction is expressly taken away
by Section 26(b) of the Act from examining the legality
of orders passed under the Act. The remedy of the
plaintiffs in such case lies in filing appeal/revision
under Section 18 of the Act against the order of the
Prescribed Authority. (See Dhulabhai vs. State of
M.P., AIR 1969 SC 78)
21. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the
considered opinion that the High Court was justified in
dismissing the appellants’ suits as being barred by
virtue of the bar contained in Section 26 of the Act. We
7
concur with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived
at by the High Court finding no case to interfere in the
impugned order in these appeals.
22. The appeals are, therefore, devoid of any merit.
They are accordingly dismissed.
………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
…...……..................................J.
[DINESH MAHESHWARI]
New Delhi;
March 15, 2019
8