MEG RAJ (DEAD) THR. L.RS. & ORS.versusMANPHOOL(DEAD) THR. L.RS. & ORS.

                              [2019] 5 S.C.R. 1                            1


              MEG RAJ (DEAD) THR. L.RS. & ORS.                             A
                                   v.
             MANPHOOL(DEAD) THR. L.RS. & ORS.
                    (Civil Appeal No.7426 of 2011)
                          MARCH 15, 2019                                   B
                [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
                  DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
       Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 – s.26 – Bar of
Jurisdiction – Suit land was subjected to ceiling under the Act and        C
the prescribed authority had passed an order in relation to the suit
land – Two civil suits were filed by the two sets of persons claiming
interest in the suit land – High Court held that both civil suits were
barred and thus, were not triable by the civil court in the light of
express bar contained in s.26 of the Act – Held: s.26(b) of the Act
clearly bars filing of civil suit to examine the legality of the order     D
passed by the prescribed authority under the Act – In other words,
the civil court’s jurisdiction is expressly taken away by s.26(b) of
the Act from examining the legality of orders under the Act – Thus,
the High Court was justified in dismissing the appellants’ suits as
being barred by virtue of the bar contained in s.26 of the Act –           E
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.9.
      Dismissing the appeals, the Court
      HELD: 1. 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           F
Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. [Para 17] [4-E]
      2. 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 passed by the Prescribed Authority under
the Act and prayed that the order be declared null and void.               G
[Para 18] [5-A-B]
       3. 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. [Para 19] [5-B-C]                                        H
                                   1
2            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 5 S.C.R.


A         4. 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
B
    under Section 18 of the Act against the order of the Prescribed
    Authority. [Para 20] [5-C-D]
          Dhulabhai v. State of M.P. AIR 1969 SC 78 :
          [1968] 3 SCR 662 – referred to.
C                           Case Law Reference
          [1968] 3 SCR 662             referred to            Para 20


          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7426
D   of 2011.
          From the Judgment and Order dated 28.01.2008 of the High
    Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 40 of 1984
                                      With
          Civil Appeal No. 3145 of 2019.
E
          Ms. Manju Jetley, Adv. for the Appellants.
          K. K. Mohan, Dr. Monika Gusain, Advs. for the Respondents.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

F        ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted in S.L.P.(c)
    No.9723/2009.
          2. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order
    dated 28.01.2008 passed by the 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.
G
         3. A few 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.24-C/1979.


H
   MEG RAJ (D) THR. L.RS. v. MANPHOOL (D) THR. L.RS.                              3
             [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

       4. The appellants are the legal representatives of the original            A
plaintiffs and the respondents are the legal representatives of original
defendants in the Civil suit No.24-C/1979 & Civil Suit No.62-C/1979
out of which these appeals arise.
      5. The dispute relates to 4/5th share in the land measuring 643
Bighas and 4 Biswas situated in village Umedpura, District Sirsa, State           B
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, “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   C
interest in the suit land. One civil suit was C.S. No. 24-C of 1979 and
other was C.S. No. 62-C of 1979.
       7. So far as C.S. No. 24-C of 1979 is concerned, it was filed by
the plaintiffs in the Court of Sub-Judge III Class, Sirsa, against the
defendants. In this suit, the plaintiffs sought a declaration that the order      D
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.421-C/
83) in the Court of Additional District Judge, Sirsa. By Judgment dated           E
17.09.1983, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and upheld
the judgment/decree of the Trial Court.
      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.                                      F
        10. So far as C.S. No. 62-C of 1979 is concerned, it was filed by
other set of plaintiffs. It was filed in the Court of Sub-Judge 1st 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.24-C of 1979. In this
suit also, the plaintiffs sought a declaration that the order dated 17.10.1978
                                                                                  G
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.


                                                                                  H
4             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2019] 5 S.C.R.


A         11. The defendants felt aggrieved and filed first appeal (C.A.77-
    C/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 appeal (R.S.A.
    No.2712/1987) in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.
B         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.24-C/
    79 and allowed RSA No. 2712/1987 which arose out of C.S. No. 62-C/
C   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.
D          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.
           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
E
    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-
F         (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
G            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
H
   MEG RAJ (D) THR. L.RS. v. MANPHOOL (D) THR. L.RS.                               5
             [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

         made under or in pursuance of this Act shall be called in                 A
         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
the Act and prayed that the order dated 17.10.2018 be declared null and            B
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         C
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       D
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          E
Act. We 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.                                                             F

Ankit Gyan                                                    Appeals dismissed.




                                                                                   G




                                                                                   H