Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2153 OF 20 12
State of M.P. ...Appellant
versus
Ghisilal ...Respondent
J U D G M E N T
R.SUBHASH REDDY,J .
1. This Civil Appeal is preferred by the
appellant - State of Madhya Pradesh, aggrieved by
the judgment and order dated 08.11.2006 passed in
Second Appeal No.129 of 2006. By the aforesaid
order, the High Court has dismissed the Second
Appeal, preferred by the appellant herein
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Rajni Mukhi
Date: 2021.11.22
17:21:03 IST
Reason:
confirming the judgment and decree passed by the
learned IV Additional District Judge, Bhopal, in
Civil Appeal No.37-A/2005 dated 23.07.2005 and the
judgment and decree dated 24.12.2004 passed by the
learned XIIth Civil Judge, Class - II, Bhopal, in
Civil Suit No.138-A/2004.
2. Necessary facts, in brief, are as under:
3. The agricultural land bearing Survey Nos.171
to 184, 214, 217 and 284 admeasuring 17.18 acres
situated at Village Bag Sevania, Tehsil Huzur,
District Bhopal, was recorded in the name of Late
Padam Singh as a Bhoomi Swami. In the aforesaid
th
land, late Padam Singh was having 1/4 share. As
the said land was covered by the Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for
convenience sake, hereinafter referred to as ‘ULC
Act’), late Padam Singh has filed declaration as
contemplated under the provisions of the ULC Act.
The competent authority has determined an extent
of 16000.32 square meters of land as vacant land
2
and the same was declared surplus. Consequent to
passing of final orders by the competent
authority, a notification under Section 10(1) of
the ULC Act was issued on 16.09.1983 and the
notification as contemplated under Section 10(3)
of the ULC Act was published in the Madhya Pradesh
Gazette, Part - III dated 20.01.1984.
4. It is the case of the appellant herein that
after following the necessary procedure
contemplated under the ULC Act, possession of the
surplus land was taken. Thereafter, the revenue
entries were corrected showing the State as owner
to the extent of the surplus land declared by the
competent authority. It is also the case of the
appellant that as the possession was already taken
prior to coming into force of the Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 (for
convenience sake, hereinafter referred to as
‘Repeal Act’), the said land was allotted for the
3
purpose of constructing dwelling houses to the
poor.
5. The respondent herein had filed suit for
declaration and permanent injunction on
09.09.2003, claiming himself to be the sole heir
and adopted son of Late Padam Singh. The relief
in the suit reads as under:
“1) That the surplus land of 16000.32
square meters which has been declared
surplus, declaration be exempted under
the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
Act, 1976 because possession has not
been taken.
2) That the defendant be restrained
from interfering with the possession of
the respondent.”
6. The Trial Court i.e., XII Civil Judge, Class -
II, Bhopal, by the judgment and decree dated
24.12.2004, decreed the suit on the ground that
possession has not been taken, before the Repeal
Act has come into force. Trial court also granted
consequential relief restraining the appellant
herein from interfering with the possession of the
4
respondent. As against the judgment and decree
passed by the trial Court, the matter was carried
by way of first appeal, by the appellant, before
the IV Additional District Judge, Bhopal and the
Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal by the
judgment and decree dated 23.07.2005. As against
the same, the appellant has carried the matter by
way of Second Appeal before the High Court. The
Second Appeal is also dismissed by the impugned
judgment and decree dated 08.11.2006.
7. The aforesaid impugned judgment is questioned
in this appeal mainly on the ground that after
necessary notifications were issued under Section
10 of the ULC Act, appellant has taken possession
and utilised the subject land for construction of
houses for the poor by spending huge amounts. It
is the case of the appellant that the respondent
has not questioned the orders passed by the
competent authority declaring the land as surplus
land, it is not open to seek declaration by the
5
respondent - plaintiff as prayed for. A specific
ground was raised in the grounds of appeal that
after taking possession, land was recorded in the
name of the Government and the surplus land was
allotted to Bhopal Development Authority for the
benefit of slum dwellers and the said Authority
has already constructed 100 (hundred) houses on
the land by spending about Rs.1.50 Crores by the
time the appeal was preferred to this Court. It
is also the case of the appellant that relief as
sought in the suit is a belated attempt, though
such suit is not maintainable in law.
8. We have heard Mr. Saurabh Mishra, learned
Additional Advocate General appearing for the
appellant - State, and Mrs. Pragati Neekhra,
learned counsel for the respondent, at length.
9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
appellant that though the suit as framed is not
maintainable at all, the Courts below have not
only entertained the suit but also granted decree
6
contrary to the various orders and notifications
issued under the provisions of the ULC Act, 1976.
It is submitted that when possession was already
taken and the land is recorded in the name of the
Government, trial court has erroneously decreed
the suit of the respondent and confirmed on appeal
on the premise that possession is not taken. It
is submitted that in fact, not only possession of
the subject land is taken and recorded in the name
of the Government, but the same is also allotted
to the Bhopal Development Authority for
construction of houses for the poor and
substantial amount is spent for construction of
houses. It is submitted that in any event, the
declaration as prayed for, is not at all
maintainable when the orders passed by the
competent authority have become final and
possession of the land was taken prior to coming
into force of the Repeal Act. The learned counsel
for the appellant, in support of his arguments,
has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court
7
in the cases of State of Assam v. Bhaskar Jyoti
1
Sarma and others , Indore Development Authority v.
2
Manoharlal and others and Competent Authority,
Calcutta, under the Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act, 1976 and another v. David Mantosh
3
and others .
10. On the other hand, Mrs. Pragati Neekhra,
learned counsel for the respondent, has vehemently
opposed the case of the appellant and submitted
that when the original declarant died before
possession is taken, without issuing any fresh
notice to the only legal heir of the original
declarant, it was not open to the appellant
authorities to take possession consequent to the
orders passed under the ULC Act. It is submitted
that in any event, if the suit filed as prayed for
is not maintainable, this Court may mould the
relief by issuing appropriate directions. The
learned counsel, in support of her arguments, has
1
(2015) 5 SCC 321
2
(2020) 8 SCC 129
3
(2020) 12 SCC 542
8
placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in
the cases of Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal
4
Pradesh and others , Mangalsen v. State of Uttar
5
Pradesh and another , Gaiv Dinshaw Irani and others
6
v. Tehmtan Irani and others and State of Uttar
7
Pradesh v. Hari Ram .
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties, we have perused the impugned judgment and
other material placed on record.
12. As evident from the copy of the plaint, which
is placed on record, the respondent filed the suit
for declaration and permanent injunction. The
prayer in the suit reads as under:
“(A) A decree be passed in favour of
the plaintiff and against the defendant to
the effect that 16000.32 square meters of
surplus declared land out of the disputed
land of the ownership of the plaintiff the
description whereof has been given in Para
1 is free from the provisions of Urban
Land Ceiling Act, 1976 because the
4
(2020) 2 SCC 569
5
(2014) 15 SCC 332
6
(2014) 8 SCC 294
7
(2013) 4 SCC 280
9
possession whereof was not received by the
government till the date the Repeal Act
became effective.
(B) A permanent injunction be passed
in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendant thereby directing the defendant
not to interfere in the peaceful
possession of the plaintiff.”
13. It is not in dispute that the land in
question is in the Urban Agglomeration and covered
by the ULC Act, 1976. As such, original owner
late Padam Singh has filed declaration under the
provisions of the ULC Act and after conducting
necessary inquiry, final orders were passed by the
competent authority declaring 16000.32 square
meters of land as surplus land. It is also clear
from the material placed on record that consequent
to final orders passed by the competent authority,
notifications under Section 10(1) and 10(3) of the
ULC Act were issued. Although, it is the case of
the respondent - plaintiff that possession was
taken without issuing notice, as such it cannot be
considered as valid taking over of possession, but
10
it is evident from the copy of the panchnama , the
respondent, who claims to be the legal heir of
late Padam Singh, is also a signatory as a witness
to the same. Though the respondent - plaintiff
was a witness to the panchnama for taking over
possession, a belated attempt was made by filing
the present suit by the respondent without even
questioning the orders passed by the competent
authority under the Act, declaring the land in
question as a surplus land. The trial court as
well as appellate court fell in error in recording
a finding that possession was not taken, inspite
of taking possession by conducting panchnama for
which respondent is a signatory. In the judgment
relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant
2
in the case of Indore Development Authority , this
Court while dealing with the provisions of the
Land Acquisition Act has held that when the
possession of the land is taken by drawing a
panchnama , that amounts to taking physical
possession of the land. It is further held that
11
anybody claiming possession thereafter has to be
treated as a trespasser and has no right to
possess the land which vests with the State free
from all encumbrances. In view of the stand of
the appellant, of taking over possession of the
land by conducting panchnama for which respondent
is a signatory, it is difficult to believe the
stand of the respondent that possession was not
taken. In view of the stand of the respondent
that possession is with the respondent, this Court
called for a report from the District Judge.
Pursuant to the same, report dated 14.04.2021 was
sent by the learned Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh to this
Court. It is evident from such report that the
appellant has taken possession of the land and the
same was allotted to the Bhopal Development
Authority and the same was utilised for
construction of about 400 houses for needy slum
dwellers by spending huge amount. Thus, it is
12
clear that possession of the land was not only
taken but same is utilised for a public purpose.
14. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,
1976 is a self-contained Code. Various
provisions of the Act make it clear that if any
orders are passed by the competent authority,
there is provision for appeal, revision before the
designated appellate and revisional authorities.
In view of such remedies available for aggrieved
parties, the jurisdiction of the civil courts to
try suit relating to land which is subject-matter
of ceiling proceedings, stands excluded by
implication. Civil court cannot declare, orders
passed by the authorities under the ULC Act, as
illegal or non est . More so, when such orders
have become final, no declaration could have been
granted by the civil court. In this regard
reference may be made to the judgment of this
Court in the case of Competent Authority,
Calcutta, under the Urban Land (Ceiling and
13
3
Regulation) Act, 1976 . We are totally in
agreement with the aforesaid view taken by this
Court.
15. In this case, it is clear from the orders
passed by the competent authorities, that the
original declarant was holding excess land to the
extent of 16000.32 square meters. When the orders
passed by the competent authority and
consequential notifications issued under Section
10(1) and 10(3) of the ULC Act have become final,
it was not open for the respondent to file a suit
seeking declaration, as prayed for. As we are of
the view that jurisdiction of the civil courts is
barred by necessary implication, trial court fell
in error in entertaining the suit, as filed by the
respondent and even the first appellate court and
second appellate court have not considered the
various grounds raised by the appellant in proper
perspective.
14
16. Although it is contended by the learned
counsel appearing for the respondent to mould the
relief, it is trite principle that where the suit
is filed with particular pleadings and reliefs, it
is to be considered with reference to pleadings on
record and the reliefs claimed in the suit only.
The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for
the respondent would not render any assistance to
support the case of the respondent. As we are in
agreement with the view taken by this Court
earlier in the case of Competent Authority,
Calcutta, under the Urban Land (Ceiling and
3
Regulation) Act, 1976 this appeal is to be allowed
by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by
the trial court as confirmed by the appellate
court on the ground that such suit itself was not
maintainable.
17. For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Appeal
is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree
dated 24.12.2004 in Civil Suit No.138-A/2004
15
passed by the learned XII Civil Judge, Class - II,
Bhopal, as confirmed by the first appellate Court
vide judgment and decree dated 23.07.2005 in Civil
Appeal No.37-A/2005 and the High Court vide
judgment and order dated 08.11.2006 in S.A. No.129
of 2006, is set aside. Consequently, the suit
filed by the respondent before the learned XII
Civil Judge, Class-II, Bhopal stands dismissed,
with no order as to costs.
……………………………………………………J
(R. SUBHASH REDDY)
……………………………………………………J
(HRISHIKESH ROY)
NEW DELHI;
November 22, 2021
16