DEVINDER SINGH AND ORSversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

A                          DEVINDER SINGH AND ORS
                                      v.
                         STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

                                    JULY 4, 2006

B             [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.]


          Land Reforms:

           Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972-Sections 14, 18 & 26-
C   Authorities concerned passed orders of allotment and declaration of surplus
    area in respect of land in dispute-Civil suit filed by Appellants for declaration
    that they were owners in possession of the said land and that orders ofallotment
    and declaration of surplus area were null and void and not binding on their
    rights-Maintainability of the suit --Held: Not maintainable since controversy
D   involved in the suit could be resolved by forum provided under the Act itself-
    Jurisdiction of Civil Court was excluded-Punjab Security of Land Tenures
    Act--Section 25A(ii)-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 9.

          The authorities concerned passed orders of allotment and declaration
    of surplus area in respect of the land in dispute. Appellants filed civil suit
E   for declaration that they were owners in possession of the said land and
    that the orders of allotment and declaration of surplus area were
    ineffective, inoperative, against principles of natural justice, null and void
    and as such not binding oni the rights of the Appellants.

          The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal is
F   whether the suit was liable to be dismissed as not maintainable being
    barred under Section 26 oif the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act,
    1972.

          Dismissing the appeal, the Court

G         HELD: Even when the statute has given finality to the orders of the
    special tribunal, the Civil Court's jurisdiction can be regarded as having
    been excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the Civil Court
    would normally do in a suit. Section 26(l)(d) on the other hand specifically
    excludes jurisdiction of the Civil Court so far as matters which are
H                                         218
          DEVINDER SINGH v. STATEOFHARYANA [PASAYAT,J.]                    219

required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Financial                     A
Commissioner, the Commissioner, Collector or prescribed Authority. The
entitlement, choice of land and the allotment are matters which are to be
dealt with specifically by the authorities under the Act. Additionally,
Section 18 provides a forum to ventilate the grievances under the Act in
respect of several matters. This is a case of exclusion of the remedy in           B
certain contingencies. It is not a case where the controversy cannot be
resolved by the forum provided under the Act. Further in case of any
grievance, the validity of the order could have been questioned before the
forum provided. That has not been done and on the other hand, the suit
was filed after about nine years. [227-C-E)

      State of Tamil Nadu v. Ramalinga Samigal Madam, [1985) 4 SCC 10,
                                                                                   c
relied on.

      Richpal Singh and Ors. v. Dalip, (1987) 4 SCC 410, referred to.

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4552 of2000.                 D
     From the Judgment and Order dated 2.1 I .1998 of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 3590/1997.

      Jitendra Sharma, A.S. Nehra, Devender Verma, P.N. Jha and Shekhar
Prit Jha for the Appellants.                                                       E
     B.S. Malik, Manjit Singh, Harikesh Singh and T.V. George for the
Respondents.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. Appellants call in question legality of the               F
judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court dismissing the second appeal filed by the appellants.

      Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

      Appellants filed suit for declaration on 7.9.1991 to the effect that they    G
are the owners in possession of Yi share of the land measuring 155 kanals 4
marlas as per jamabandi for the year 1983-84 situated in village Kairanwali,
Tehsil and District Sirsa and the order of allotment and declaration of surplus
area so far as the said land is concerned are ineffective, inoperative and
against the principles of natural justice, null and void and as such not binding   H
    220                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A on the rights of the plaintiffs. The suit was decreed by learned Senior Sub
    Judge, Sirsa in Civil Suit No. I054 of 1989. Respondents filed an appeal
    before the District Judge. The appeal was assigned to learned Additional
    District Judge who by his judgment and decree dated 14. l 0.1997 set aside
    the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit. A second
    appeal was carried before the High Court which by the impugned judgment
B   dismissed the appeal holding that since Section 26 of the Haryana Ceiling on
    Land Holding Act, 1972 (in short 'the Act') provides that no Civil Court
    shall have the jurisdiction to entertain or proceed with a suit for specific
    performance of the contract for transfer of land which affects the right of the
    State Government to the surplus area under the Act, or settle any matter
C   which under the Act is required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the
    Financial Commissioner, the Commissioner, the Collector or the Prescribed
    Authority; the suit was not maintainable.

         Learned counsel for the: appellants submitted that the first Appellate
    Court and the High Court were not justified in their conclusion.
D
           Case of the appellants-plaintiffs and the respondents-defendants in the
    suit is a:; follows:

         According to the plaintiffs Jagmal, son ofNanhu was a big land owner
  under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, (in short
E 'Tenures Act') and his surplus area case was decided en 30. !2.1961 in old
  khasra numbers. After the consideration, no proceedings under Section 25
  A(ii) under Tenures Act or under Section 14( I) of the Act were initiated
  against the plaintiffs or said Jagmal. By Civil Court decree of 1970, the
  plaintiffs got the suit land from Jagmal, the grandfather of the plaintiffs and
F mutation No.413 dated 20.2.1970 was sanctioned in their favour and since
  then they are recorded as owners in possession of the suit land and have
  never been summoned, heard and they have not received any notice from the
  revenue officers for any proceedings. Land in dispute was never declared
  surplus and they are transferees from Jagmal. Mutation No.610 dated 26. 7.1982
  has been attested in favour of the State of Haryana on the basis of the order
G dated 26.9.1980, which is illegal, null and void and liable to be set aside as
  the plaintiffs were not parties to that order nur they were summoned or heard.
  Similarly, the order dated 8.3.1981 allotting the land is also null and void
  because they were also not party to that order and hence, the same is liable
  to be set aside.

H
         DEVINDERSINGH v. STATEOFHARYANA [PASAYAT, J.]                   221

      In the written statement filed refuting the statement made in the plaint A
defendants stated that the Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try
the suit; that the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 of Code of
Civil Procedure, 1973, that the suit is bad for non-joinder of allottees as the
disputed land has been allotted vide order dated 8.3.1981; that the plaintiffs
have not come to the Court with clean hands; that the suit is not maintainable B
in the present form; that the plaintiffs have not availed of the remedies
provided under the Act and that the plaintiffs have no cause cf action to file
this suit.

      On merits, it was pleaded that Jagmal son of Nanu Ram, a big land
owner transferred the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs as evidenced by C
Civil Court decree in the year 1970, and under the provisions of the Act of
1972, the father of plaintiffs Udey Paul son of Jagmal filed the declaration
form wherein he has included the plaintiffs as members of his family and he
has also included the land obtained by the plaintiffs from Jagmal. The
declaration form of Udey Paul was decided on 26.9.1980 by the Prescribed
Authority, Sirsa and as per this order, the suit land was declared surplus and D
vested in the State. The order dated 26.9.1980 is final as no appeal has been
preferred against it. It is also pleaded that the surplus area has been allotted
by the Allotment Authority, Sirsa on 8.3.1981 and possession has been
delivered to the allottees on the spot, as per rules. It is further pleaded that
Jagmal who was a big land owner under the Tenures Act transferred the land E
in favour of plaintiffs as evidenced by Civil Court decree of 1970 which is
based on collusion. It was further pleaded that since the declaration form was
filed by the head of the family, there was no need to hear or give notice to
the plaintiffs. Lastly, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed with special
costs. Following issues were framed:
                                                                                 F
      1. Whether the orders for declaration of the suit property as surplus,
vesting in the State of Haryana and its allotment are illegal, invalid, not
binding upon the right of the plaintiff and liable to be set aside as alleged?
OPP

     2. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD              G
     3. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice u/s 80 of CPC? OPD

     4. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD

      5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD       H
    222                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A         6. Whether the suit is premature? OPD

          7. Whether the suit is malafide? OPD

          8. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit? OPD

B         9. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action? OPD

          10. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

         11. Whether the defendants are entitled for special costs u/s 35-A or
    CPC? OPD
c         12. Relief.

          The Trial Court held that the suit was maintainable, as the matter was
    decided without notice to the plaintiffs. It was also held that there was no
    period of limitation for getting the orders set aside.
D        The respondents filed appeals before the District Judge, Sirsa who
    allowed the appeal and set aside Trial's Court judgment and decree.

          The Second appeal as noted above, was dismissed upholding view of
    the First Appellate Court.
E          With reference to the aforesaid background, learned counsel for the
    appellants submitted that the suit was clearly entertainable and the Civil
    Court had jurisdiction. The procedures prescribed in the Act in the matter of
    filing of return, determination of ceiling and the selection of permissible area
    have not been followed. It has been pointed out that in the return filed by the
F   father of the plaintiffs, the age of the plaintiffs were clearly mentioned. By
    the time of adjudication they had a.ttained majority and, therefore, had interest
    in the property. Though they did not claim any land beyond the permissible
    they had a right so far as choice of land is concerned and, therefore, the Trial
    Court had rightly decreed the suit. Unfortunately, the first Appellate Court
G   and the High Court lost sight of the relevant provisions and held that the
    Civil Court had no jurisdiction.

          In response, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the suit
    was filed after 9 years of the order passed by the concerned authority. Father
    of the appellants had filed details of the area to be retained. The remedies
H   available under the Act clearly ruled out any resort to Civil Court. Reference
          DEVINDERSINGHv. STATEOFHARYANA[PASAYAT,J.)                        223
has been made to Section 26(1 )(b) of the Act in this regard. It was, therefore,   A
submitted that the First Appellate Court and High Court have rightly held
that the suit was not maintainable.

      Section 26 deals with bar of jurisdiction. The same reads as follows:

        "26. Bar of jurisdiction: (I) No civil court shall have jurisdiction to    B
        (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         C
        required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Financial
        Commissioner, the Commissioner, the Collector or the prescribed
        authority.

       (c) No order of the Financial Commissioner, the Commissioner, the
       Collector or the prescribed authority made under or in pursuance of         D
       this Act shall be called in que5tion ".

      At this juncture it is relevant to take note of Section 18 also which
reads as follows:

       "18. Appeal, Review and Revision. (1) Any person aggrieved by any           E
       decision or order of the prescribed authority, not being the Collector,
       may, within [fifteen days] from the date of the decision or order,
       prefer an appeal to the Collector in such form and manner as may be
       prescribed:

           Provided that the Collector may entertain the appeal after the          F
       expiry of the said period of [fifteen days] if he is satisfied that the
       appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in
       time.

       (2) Any person aggrieved by a decision or order of the Collector
       (whether acting as prescribed authority or not) being a decision or         G
       order made in an appeal under sub-section (1), may, within [fifteen
       days] from the date of the decision or order, prefer an appeal to the
       Commissioner in such form and manner as may be prescribed:

           Provided that the Commissioner may entertain the appeal after
       the expiry of the said period of(fifteen days] ifhe is satisfied that the   H
    224                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A         appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in
          time.

          [(3) Omitted ]

          (4) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Collector under sub-
B         section(!), may, within [thirty days] from the date of the order, file
          a revision petition before the Commissioner so as to challenge the
          legality or propriety of such order and the Commissioner may pass
          such order as he may de1:m fit. The order of the Commissioner shall
          be final.

C         [(5) Omitted ]

          (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub-sections,
          the Financial Commissioner may suo motu at any time call for the
          record of any proceedings or order of any authority subordim:te to
          him for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety
D         of such proceedings or order, and may pass such order in relation
          thereto as he 111ay deem fit.

          (7) No appeal under sub-section (I) or sub-section (2) shall be
          entertained unless the appellant or the petitioner, as the case may be,
          has deposited a sum equal to thirty times the land holdings tax payable
E         in respect of. the disputed surplus area or has furnished a bank
          guarantee of the equal amount as security with the appellate or
          revisional authority;

          (8) Notwithstanding contained in Section 21, a person who files an
          appeal or a revision against the order declaring his land as surplus
F         area and the appeal or revision filed by him fails, shall be liable to
          pay, for the period he is or has at any time been in possession of the
          land declared surplus to which he is or was not entitled under the law,
          a licence fee equal to thirty times the land holdings tax, recoverable
          in respect of this area.

G         (9) If the appeal or revision succeeds, the amount deposited or the
          bank guarantee furnished under sub-section (7) shall be refunded or
          released, as the case may be. If the appeal or revision fails, the amount
          deposited in cash or the amount of the bank guarantee furnished,
          shall be adjusted against the licence fee recoverable under sub-section
          (8)."
H
         DEVINDER SlNGHv. STATEOFHARYANA [PASAYAT,J.]                       225
      The law relating to jurisdiction has been the subject-matter of various A
decisions. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Ramalinga Samigal Madam, [ 1985] 4
sec 10 it was, inter alia, held as follows:
       "8. The principles bearing on the question as to when exclusion of
       the Civil Court's jurisdiction can be inferred have been indicated in
       several judicial pronouncements but we need refer to only two                B
       decisions. In Secretary of State v. Mask and Company, AIR (1940)
       PC 105 the Privy Council at page 236 of the Report has observed
       thus:

            It is settled law that the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil
           Courts is not to be readily inferred, but that such exclusion must       C
           either be explicitly expressed or clearly implied. It is also well
           settled that even if jurisdiction is so excluded, the Civil Courts
           have jurisdiction to examine into cases where the provisions of
           the Act have not been complied with, or the statutory tribunal
           has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of           D
           judicial procedure.
       In Dhulabhai v. State of MP., [l 968] 3 SCR 662 Hidayatullah, C.J.,
       speaking for the Court, on an analysis of the various decisions cited
       before the _Court expressing diverse views, culled out as many as 7
       propositions; out of them the first two which are material for our           E
       purposes are these :
            (I) Where the statute gives a finality to the orders of the special
            tribunal the Civil Court's jurisdiction must be held to be excluded
            if there is adequate remedy to do what the Civil Courts would
            normally do in a suit. Such provision, however, does not exclude        F
            those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not
            been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in
            confonnity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure.

       (2) Where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the Court, an
       examination of the Scheme of the Particular Act to find the adequacy         G
       or the sufficiency of the remedies provided may be relevant but js not
       decisive to sustain the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.

       Where there is no express exclusion the examination of the remedies
       and the scheme of the particular Act to find out the intendment
       becomes necessary and the result of the inquiry may be decisive. In H
    226                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A           the latter case it is necessary to see of the statute creates a special
            right or a liability and provides for the determination of the right or
            liability and further lays down that all questions about the said right
            and liability shall be determined by the tribunals so constituted, and
            whether remedies normally associated with actions in Civil Courts
            are prescribed by the said statute or not.
B
            xxx xxx xxx

             14. Thirdly, having regard to the principles stated by this Court while
            enunciating the first proposition in Dhulabhai case it is clear that
            even where the statute has given finality to the orders of the special
c           tribunal the Civil Court's jurisdiction can be regarded as having been
            excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the Civil Court
            would normally do in a suit. In other words, even where finality is
            accorded to the orders passed by the special tribunal one will have to
            see whether such special tribunal has powers to· grant reliefs which
            Civil Court would normally grant in a suit and if the answer is in the
D
            negative it would be difficult to imply or infer exclusion of Civil
            Court's jurisdiction. Now take the case of an applicant who has applied
            for a ryotwari patta und(:r Section 11 staking his claim thereto on the
            basis of his long and uninterrupted possession of the ryoti land but
            the Settlement Officer on materials before him is not satisfied that the
E           land in question is ryoti land; in that case he will refuse the patta to
            the applicant. But can he, even after the refusal of the patta, protect
            the applicant's long and uninterrupted possession against the
            Government interference? Obviously, he cannot, for it lies within his
            power and jurisdiction merely to grant or refuse to grant the patta on
            the basis of materials placed before him. But such a person even after
F           the refusal of the ryoitwari patta would be entitled to protect his
            possess01y title and long enjoyment of the land and seek an injunction
            preventing Government's interference otherwise than in due course
            of law and surely before granting such relief the Civil Court may
            have to adjudicate upon the real nature or character of the land if the
G           same is put in issue. In other words since the Settlement Officer has
          ' no power to do what Civil Court would normally do in a suit it is
            difficult to imply ouster of Civil Court's jurisdiction simply because
            finality has been accorded to the Settlement Officer's order under
            Section 64-C of the Act."

H         In Richpa/ Singh and Ors. v. Dalip, (1987] 4 SCC 410, it was held as
           DEVINDER SINGHv. STATEOFHARYANA [PASAYAT, J.]                      227
under:                                                                                A
         "12. It is well settled that ouster of jurisdiction of civil courts should
         not be inferred easily. It must be clearly provided for and established."

      Strong reliance was placed by learned counsel for the appellant on
(1979] 2 All ER 1016). Para 15 of State of Tamil Npdu's case (supra) deal             B
with question relating to jurisdiction. These cases dealt with cases where
there was no exclusion of any other remedy.

       The principles culled out from various decisions of this Court are that
even when the statute has given finality to the orders of the special tribunal,
the Civil Court's jurisdiction can be regarded as having been excluded if             C
there is adequate remedy to do what the Civil Court would normally do in
a suit. Section 26(1 )( d) on the other hand specifically excludes jurisdiction of
the Civil Court so far as matters which are required to be settled, decided or
dealt with by the Financial Commissioner, the Commissioner, Collector or
prescribed Authority. The entitlement, choice of land and the allotment are           D
matters which are to be dealt with specifically by the authorities under the
Act. Additionally, Section 18 provides a forum to ventilate the grievances
under the Act in respect of several matters. This is a case of exclusion of the
remedy in certain contingencies. It is not a case where the controversy cannot
be resolved by the forum provided under the Act. Further in case of any
grievance, the validity of the order could have been questioned before the            E
forum provided. That has not been done and on the other hand, the suit was
filed after about nine years.

     Above being the position, the appeal is without merit and is dismissed.
No costs.
                                                                                      F
B.B.B.                                                         Appeal dismissed.