Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balkar Singh And Others vs Punjab State And Others on 13 August, 2013
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
-1-
RSA No.2735 of 2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA No.2735 of 2002
Date of decision: 13.08.2013
Balkar Singh and others
....Appellants
Versus
Punjab State and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
Present: - Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. T.N. Sarup, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate, for
Mr. P.S. Kang, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
*****
PARAMJEET SINGH, J.
The instant regular second appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and decree dated 15.12.1999 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana, and the judgment and decree dated 19.2.2002 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the suit as well as the appeal filed by Lachhman Singh, father of the appellants, has been dismissed, respectively.
Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff - Lachhman Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from Singh Ravinder 2013.09.06 13:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -2- RSA No.2735 of 2002 dispossessing the plaintiff from the land measuring 41 kanals 10 marlas, details of which are given in the headnote of the plaint, and also for declaration of sale deeds dated 13.9.1976 and 14.9.1976 executed by defendants No.4 and 5 in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 as illegal, void and without jurisdiction qua the rights of the plaintiff and mutations sanctioned on that basis are also illegal, void and without jurisdiction and do not affect the rights of the plaintiff. It was pleaded that plaintiff was an agriculturist and had been in cultivating possession of the land since 1965-66. Plaintiff took over the possession of the barren land and with the dint of his hard-work made it fit for cultivation. Being in possession of the land in question he was entitled to its allotment and also entitled to proprietary rights under the Punjab Utilization and Surplus Area Scheme. Defendants No.4 to 7 in connivance with the revenue officials managed to fabricate and manipulate the entries in the revenue records. None of the defendants was ever in possession, as such there is no question of any allotment being made in favour of either of the defendants. To further perpetuate their illegalities, defendant No.6 moved an application under Section 13 of the Punjab Utilization of Surplus Area Scheme, 1973 on 29.7.1973 for issuance of certificate and evaluation of land to deposit price thereof. Defendant No.8, whose land it was before being declared surplus, colluded with him and admitted the claim of Surinderjit Singh before the Collector Agrarian, Ludhiana, who vide his order dated 21.5.1971 ordered transfer of 93 kanal 15 marlas of land situated in village Partap Singh Wala on part payment of Singh Ravinder 2013.09.06 13:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -3- RSA No.2735 of 2002 Rs.23712.50. Surinderjit Singh was never in possession of those properties. He was unable to cultivate it because of old age and infirmity. There was no settlement or privity of contract between him and Darshan Singh and the Collector even ignored pendency of application of the plaintiff for allotment of the same land to him. He was not even told about pendency of any application by Surinderjit Singh. On notice, defendants appeared and filed their written statements. Defendants No.2 and 3 filed their written statement jointly by raising preliminary objections that the suit was barred by limitation and the jurisdiction of the civil court to try the suit was also barred under the Land Reforms Act. Objection was also raised that in the previous litigation, plaintiff had not deposited the costs, therefore, the suit is not maintainable. It was also alleged that plaintiff has come to the court with soiled hands by distorting the facts. The suit was further objected for being not maintainable under Section 15 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act 1973. On merits, it was averred that plaintiff had cultivated the suit properties for some time only as a tenant under Randhir Singh and Satinderjit Singh and was ejected by order of revenue court and is now estopped by his act and conduct to file the present suit. He is not in possession of the suit properties since 1965-66 as claimed in the plaint and denied his pleadings of having occupied barren and vacant lands to make them cultivable by spending huge money. The claim of the plaintiff for being allotted suit properties was repelled by pleading that this question is not Singh Ravinder 2013.09.06 13:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -4- RSA No.2735 of 2002 to be gone into by a civil court rather it is to be decided by the authorities under the Punjab Land Reforms Act and under the Punjab Utilization of Surplus Area Scheme. Replication to the written statements was filed.
After perusal of the pleadings, learned trial court framed the following issues: -
"1. Whether the sale deed dated 13.9.1974 and 14.9.1975 executed by Kulwinder Singh and Jagtar Singh, defendants No.4 to 6 in favour of defendant No.2 is null and void as alleged? OPP
2. Whether the land comprised in khasra numbers 1805 and 1806 were allotted to Surinder Pal Singh, if so to what effect? OPP
3. If issue No.2 is proved whether the said land can be sold to the Corporation? OPP
4. Whether the suit is barred by principles of res-judicata?
OPD
5. Whether the suit is within time? OPP
6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?
OPD
7. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try this suit?
OPD
8. Whether the suit is liable to be stayed on account of failure of plaintiff deposited the costs as alleged in preliminary objection No.3? OPD
9. Whether the suit is barred by Section 15 of the Public Premises Act? OPD
10. Whether the order of allotment of land and order of Collector dated 21.5.1974 are illegal and void and without jurisdiction? OPP
11. Whether the Surinder Pal has ever been in possession of Singh Ravinder 2013.09.06 13:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -5- RSA No.2735 of 2002 the land in dispute? OPP
12. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction prayed for? OPD
13. Relief."
Issues No.7 and 9 were treated as preliminary issues. On issue No.7 learned trial court came to the conclusion that jurisdiction of the civil court to question the order passed by the authorities under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 and Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, stands barred and as such civil court cannot decide the validity or legality of the order dated 21.5.1974 passed by the Collector Agrarian. Accordingly the issue was decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants. Similarly the order of ejectment from the suit property was passed under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act. In view of Section 15 of the said Act, the jurisdiction of civil court was held to be excluded and accordingly learned trial court held that the suit is not maintainable in civil court. The findings recorded by learned trial court were affirmed by learned lower appellate court and the appeal preferred by the plaintiff was dismissed. Hence this regular second appeal.
Following substantial questions of law were framed by the appellants in the grounds of appeal: -
"1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the civil court has jurisdiction to try the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant?
2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the instant case the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant could be said to be Singh Ravinder 2013.09.06 13:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -6- RSA No.2735 of 2002 barred by Section 15 of the Public Premises Act?"
Present appeal was not admitted rather was ordered to be heard with CWP No.1408 of 1988, which has been heard and disposed of by a separate order today.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Preliminary issues and the substantial questions of law framed by the appellants, are virtually of the same nature. It is to be seen whether the civil court has jurisdiction to set aside the order passed under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 and Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. Admittedly the land with defendant No.6 was declared surplus under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 and the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. Allotment of surplus land was to be made under the Punjab Utilization and Surplus Area Scheme.
Section 21 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act reads as under: -
"21. Bar of jurisdiction. -- (1) Save as provided by or under this Act, the validity of any proceedings or order taken or made under this Act shall not be called in question in any court or before any other authority. (2) No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit, or proceed with any suit instituted after the appointed day, for specific performance of a contract for transfer of land which affects the rights of the State Government to the surplus area under this Act."
From the perusal of the Punjab Land Reforms Act it is clear Singh Ravinder 2013.09.06 13:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -7- RSA No.2735 of 2002 that validity of any proceeding or order taken or made under the Land Reforms Act shall not be called in question in any court or before any other authority. Section 21(2) specifically bars the jurisdiction of civil court wherein it is specifically mentioned that no civil court has jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceed with any suit instituted after the appointed day for specific performance of contract for transfer of land which affects the rights of the State Government to the surplus area under the Act.
In view of the specific bar under the Act, suit was not maintainable and has rightly held to be so by the courts below.
Section 15 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 specifically excludes the jurisdiction of the civil court to adjudicate upon the orders passed by the authorities under the Act. The remedy available to the plaintiff to challenge the order was by way of appeal as provided in the said Act.
Since there is a specific bar to jurisdiction of civil court, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the judgment and decree passed by learned courts below.
Dismissed.
(Paramjeet Singh) Judge August 13, 2013 R.S. Singh Ravinder 2013.09.06 13:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh