Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Shahida Parveen vs Shri Laxmi Narain Induria on 25 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50084
1 MA-1495-2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
ON THE 25th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 1495 of 2010
SMT. SHAHIDA PARVEEN AND OTHERS
Versus
SHRI LAXMI NARAIN INDURIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mrs. Shobha Menon - Senior Advocate with Ms. Shruti Tiwari -
Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Deepesh Joshi - Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4.
ORDER
The instant appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(U) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') has been filed by the appellants/defendants being aggrieved with the remand order dated 05.02.2008 passed by the First Appellate Court i.e.10 th Additional District Judge, Bhopal, in Regular Civil Appeal No.135/2007.
2. Brief facts of the matter are that on 18.06.1997, respondent No.1/plaintiff got his agricultural land situated at Village- Chhan, Tehsil Huzur, Bhopal, demarcated under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'MPLRC') whereupon unauthorized possession of appellants was found. The respondent No.1 instead of filing an application under Section 250 of MPLRC before the Tehsildar, issued notice to the appellants to hand-over the possession Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY Signing time: 07-10-2025 17:04:59 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50084 2 MA-1495-2010 vacating the land and even before the expiry of limitation period of two years, filed a suit for recovery of possession and permanent injunction on 04.05.1998 before the competent Court of law. The appellants submitted their written statement along with counter claim dated 28.07.2001. The respondent No.1/plaintiff, thereafter, filed applications under Order I Rule 10 and Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to implead other defendants as party and to amend the plaint, respectively, which were allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the appellant No.1 filed an application under VII Rule 11(a) of CPC for rejection of the plaint inter-alia on the ground of non- maintainability of the suit in the light of expressed provisions of Section 257 r/w 250 of MPLRC. The said application was allowed by the trial Court and consequently, the suit filed by respondent No.1 was dismissed on 19.04.2007. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by learned trial Court, respondent No.1 had filed a regular civil appeal wherein the order passed by the trial Court has been set-aside and matter has been remanded back for deciding on merits. Hence, this appeal.
3. Learned senior counsel for the appellants/defendants submits that learned appellate Court has wrongly allowed the plaintiffs' appeal ignoring the provisions of Section 250 and 257(x) of MPLRC, under which the civil court has no jurisdiction and revenue court has only exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the issue pertaining to agricultural land. The present suit, being one for recovery of possession of agricultural land, is not maintainable before the Civil Court in view of the express bar contained under Section 257 of the MPLRC. The subject-matter of the suit pertains to agricultural land, and the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY Signing time: 07-10-2025 17:04:59 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50084 3 MA-1495-2010 relief sought is for recovery of possession, which squarely falls within the jurisdiction of revenue authorities as provided under Section 250 of MPLRC, which specifically empowers the Sub-Divisional Officer to restore possession to a person who was unlawfully dispossessed of agricultural land. It is a settled position of law that when a special statute provides a specific remedy before a particular forum and expressly bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts, the jurisdiction of Civil Courts stands excluded. Hence, the proper remedy available to the plaintiffs lies before the Revenue Court, and the present civil suit is, therefore, barred by the provisions of Section 257 of MPLRC and the learned Civil Judge has rightly allowed the application filed by defendant No.2 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. With respect to above, learned appellate Court wrongly arrived at the finding that the on the basis of title, the plaintiffs are entitled to recover possession from the defendants by way of filing civil suit. On the above grounds, it is urged that the appeal filed by the appellants/defendants be allowed and impugned judgment may be set- aside restoring the order passed by the trial court. In support of her contentions, learned senior counsel for the appellants places reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in M.A. No.3761 of 2009 parties being Rajaram Vs. Ashish & Others .
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs supports the impugned judgment passed by learned appellate Court submitting that the present suit for recovery of possession and permanent injunction is maintainable before the Civil Court, as the same is based on the plaintiffs' ownership and title over the suit land. The mere availability of a Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY Signing time: 07-10-2025 17:04:59 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50084 4 MA-1495-2010 summary remedy under Section 250 of MPLRC does not oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court where the plaintiffs assert ownership rights. The learned appellate Court has rightly interpreted the provisions as it is a settled principle of law that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is the rule, and its exclusion must be strictly construed. Unless there is a clear and express bar, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot be excluded by implication. The MPLRC nowhere expressly bars a civil suit where the plaintiff's claim for possession and permanent injunction is based on ownership or title, the Civil Court's jurisdiction is not ousted merely because Section 250 of the MPLRC provides a remedy. He also draws attention of this Court towards Part-II Chapter-I of Specific Relief Act, 1963, pointing-out the admissibility of suit for recovery of possession. To substantiate his contentions, he relies upon the judgments reported in: (1998) 8 SCC 751 parties being Beni Madhav Singh & Others Vs. Ram Naresh, (2005) 10 SCC 24 parties being Hukum Singh (Dead) by LRs. & Others Vs. State of M.P., (2000) 3 SCC 668 parties being Rohini Prasad & Others Vs. Kasturchand & Another, 2001(2) MPLJ 644 parties being State of M.P. Vs. Balveer Singh S/o Babulal, (2008) 4 SCC 594 parties being Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs & Others, M.A. No.3761/2009 parties being Rajaram Vs. Ashish & Others, (2007) 14 SCC 183 parties being C.Natrajan Vs. Ashim Bai & Another, (2007) 10 SCC 59 parties being Ram Prakash Gupta Vs. Rajiv Kumar Gupta & Others, (2015) 8 SCC 331 parties being P.V. Guru Raj Reddy represented by GPA Laxmi Narayan Reddy & Another Vs. P. Neeradha Reddy & Others.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY Signing time: 07-10-2025 17:04:59NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50084 5 MA-1495-2010
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Perusal of impugned judgment, especially paragraphs-11 to 13, reveals that learned appellate Court, after relying upon various pronouncements delivered by this High Court and also referring to Sections 250 and 257(x) of MPLRC, allowed the plaintiffs' appeal holding that the suit was maintainable before the Civil Court.
7. The issue before this Court is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, plaintiffs' suit was barred under Section 257(x) of MPLRC or not.
8. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of Sections 250 and 257(x) of MPLRC, which were in force at the relevant point of time, which are as under:-
"250. Reinstatement of Bhumiswami improperly dispossessed. -1) For the purpose of this section and section 250- A Bhoomiswami shall include occupancy tenant and government lessee.
(1-a) If a bhoomiswami is dispossessed of the land otherwise than in due course of law or if any person unauthorisedly continues in possession of any land of the Bhoomiswami to the use of which such person has ceased to be entitled under any provision of this code, the Bhoomiswami or his successor in interest may apply to the Tehsildar for restoration of the possession,-
(a) xxx xxx xxx
(b) in case of a Bhoomiswami not covered by clause (a), within two years from the date of dispossession or from the date on which possession of such person becomes unauthorised, as the case may be.
257. Exclusive jurisdiction of revenue authorities.- Except as otherwise provided in this code, or in any other enactment for the time being in force, no Civil Court shall entertain any suit instituted or application made to obtain a decision or order on any matter which the State Government, the Board, or any Revenue Officer is by this Code, empowered to determine, decide or dispose of, and in particular and without prejudice to the generality of this provision, no Civil Court shall exercise jurisdiction over any of the following matters:-
xxx xxx xxx
(x) any decision regarding reinstatement of a Bhumiswami improperly dispossessed and confinement in civil prison under Section 250."
9. Perusal of plaint averments as well as other material available on record clearly reveals that the plaintiffs are owner of disputed land which is Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY Signing time: 07-10-2025 17:04:59 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50084 6 MA-1495-2010 agricultural land. There is no evidence in rebuttal to the effect of plaintiffs' ownership over the disputed land. Thus, it is clearly established that appellants/plaintiffs are owner of disputed agricultural land.
10. It is also evident from the plaint averments that plaintiffs have not sought any declaration with respect to title. Plaintiffs have filed suit for recovery of possession and permanent injunction on the basis of established title. On perusal of material available with the case file, it shows that the respondents/plaintiffs got the land demarcated on 18.06.1997, came to know about the unauthorized possession of appellants/defendants on the same day and suit was filed on 04.05.1998. On perusal of Section 250(1-a)(b) of MPLRC reveals that therein Bhumiswami can file an application for recovery of possession before the Tehsildar within two years from the date of dispossession or from the date on which the possession of such person becomes unauthorised, as the case may be. The present suit has been filed within two years from dispossession or the date of knowledge of unauthorized possession of the appellants, therefore, it would be covered under Section 250(1-a)(b) of MPLRC.
11. Further, with regard to the issue involved in the case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations and principles laid down by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ramgopal Kanhaiyalal Vs. Chetu Batte, AIR 1976 MP 160 which are as under:-
"1. The questions referred to this Full Bench are whether the Civil Court cannot take cognizance of a suit instituted by Bhumiswami on the basis of his title, against a trespasser; and whether the decision in Nathu v. Dilbande Hussain, AIR 1967 Madh Pra 14, is no longer good law.
2. Chetu brought the suit against Ramgopal on the averment that he is the Bhumiswami of survey No. 138/3 (area 5 Biahas 9 Biswas) of village Kulhar, Tahsil Basoda. On or about Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY Signing time: 07-10-2025 17:04:59 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50084 7 MA-1495-2010 July 15, 1963, the defendant wrongfully took possession of the suit land..........
xxx xxx xxx
6. The above dictum may be analysed thus:--
(1) Section 250 (2) confers jurisdication on the Tahsildar to decide a Bhumiswami's application for restoration of possession.
(2) The Tahsildar has to make an enquiry into the respective claims of the parties. (3) The enquiry, which is contemplated, is of a summary nature. (4) The Tahsildar has to decide whether the person complaining of dispossession is or is not a Bhumiswami and whether he has been dispossessed or there has been unauthorised and illegal continuance of possession by the person complained against.
(5) But both the questions, (a) as regards title of the Bhumiswami, and (b) of possession, are not finally decided by the Tahsildar. The party aggrieved by an order under Section 250 has a remedy to file a civil suit for establishing his title to the land and for obtaining possession of the same.
(6) Section 257(x) of the Code does not bar such a civil suit, i.e. a suit for possession of land founded on title. It is only a suit of the type of one under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act for restoration of possession of land, which is barred by Section 257(x) of the Code.
(7) The decision of the Revenue Court will not operate as res judicata in such a civil suit.
xxx xxx xxx
15. Under the general law, a suit for possession based on title can be instituted in the Civil Court within 12 years from the date of dispossession. The principle that possession must follow title has received greater weight and sanctity when the distinction between the scope and effect of Article 142 and those of Article 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908, has been watered down and simpler provisions have been substituted in Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act of 1963. It will be anomalous to read Section 250 as providing for a suit for possession based on title, which is to be instituted within two years only. It will entail a fantastic result that if a suit is not brought within two years under Section 250, the Bhumiswami's right will be extinguished, because, by virtue of Section 26 of the Limitation Act, if a suit for possession is not instituted within the period of limitation prescribed them not only the remedy is barred but right is also extinguished. Section 26 is an exception to the general rule that limitation bars the remedy but does not extinguish the right.
xxx xxx xxx
17. We, therefore, hold that a Bhumiswami is not bound to avail himself of the speedy remedy provided in Section 250 of the Code. It is open to him to take recourse to the summary remedy under Section 250, or even without it straightway bring a suit in the Civil Court for declaration of his title and possession. Even if there has been a decision under Section 250 by a revenue Court, the party aggrieved may institute a civil suit to establish his title to the disputed land. We further hold that Nathu v. Dilbande Hussain, AIR 1967 Madh Pra 14 : 1964 Jab LJ 707 was correctly decided. The Civil Court can take cognizance of a suit. This is our answer to the questions referred to us."Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY Signing time: 07-10-2025 17:04:59
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50084 8 MA-1495-2010 (emphasis supplied)
12. The principle laid-down by Full Bench in Ramgopal Kanhaiyalal (Supra) has been affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Rohini Prasad and other Vs. Kasturchand and other, AIR 2000 SC 1283.
13. In view of facts and circumstances of the case as well as principles laid-down by Full Bench of this Court in Ramgopal Kanhaiyalal (supra) and which has been affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Rohni Prasad (Supra), this Court finds that Section 250 of MPLRC provides a specific remedy for a person who has been unlawfully dispossessed of agricultural land. The said provision empowers the Sub-Divisional Officer to restore the possession to such person after due inquiry. Section 257 of MPLRC expressly provides that "No Civil Court shall exercise jurisdiction over any matter which the State Government, the Board or any Revenue Officer is empowered to determine under this Code." The power to restore possession of agricultural land being specifically conferred upon the revenue authorities under Section 250 of MPLRC, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in such matters stands expressly barred.
14. In the present case, the plaintiffs' claim is confined to recovery of possession and permanent injunction of agricultural land, however, there is no dispute regarding ownership or title nor has any declaratory relief been sought. The relief prayed for is one which the revenue authorities are competent to grant under Section 250 of MPLRC.
15. It is a settled principle of law that where a special statue provides a complete and efficacious remedy for a particular kind of dispute and the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY Signing time: 07-10-2025 17:04:59 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50084 9 MA-1495-2010 jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred, the Civil Court cannot entertain such a suit.
16. In view of the specific remedy provided under Section 250 of MPLRC and the express bar of jurisdiction under Section 257, this Court holds that the civil suit is not maintainable before the Civil Court without seeking declaration in respect of declaration of his title. Accordingly, the judgment passed by the appellate Court is hereby set-aside and the suit being barred by law, the order passed by the Civil Court rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is hereby restored. The appeal stands allowed.
17. However, the respondents may take the recourse before the revenue authorities under the provisions of MPLRC or any other proceeding in accordance with law.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI) JUDGE Prachi Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY Signing time: 07-10-2025 17:04:59