Punjab-Haryana High Court
Omkar Singh vs Nirmal on 18 May, 2000
Equivalent citations: (2000)126PLR361
Author: M.L. Singhal
Bench: M.L. Singhal
JUDGMENT M.L. Singhal, J.
1. This is civil revision against the order dated 9.8.1999 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Palwal whereby she decided that Civil Court has jurisdiction to try this suit.
2. Nirmal and Tulli plaintiffs filed suit for declaration against Omkar Singh and others to the effect that they have become owners of land in suit because of the coming into force of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 (Punjab Act No. 8 of 1953) on 15.6.1952 because prior to the coming into force of this Act, they were occupancy tenants and with the coming into force of this Act, their occupancy nights became enlarged into ownership rights in view of the provisions of Section 3 of this Act.
3. Defendants contested the suit inter alia urging that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit as ft lay within the ambit of revenue Court to determine the nature of tenancy. "Whether they were or were not occupancy tenants as defined in Section 5, 6 and 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 is a matter that falls for determination before the revenue Court"?
4. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Palwal vide order dated 9.8.1999 found that civil Court has jurisdiction to decide whether the plaintiffs were occupancy tenants so that further declaration could be granted to them whether their occupancy rights had been enlarged into full ownership rights with the coming into force of the Act No. 8 of 1953.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to declare whether one is or is not occupancy tenant, such declaration can be given only by the revenue Court under Section 77(3) of the Act No. 16 of 1887. Section 77(3) of this Act lays down that "the following suits shall be instituted in, and heard the determined by, Revenue Courts, and no other Court shall take cognizance of any. dispute or matter with respect to which any such suit might be instituted:-
Provided that -(1)
(2) on the plaint being presented to the Collector, the Collector shall proceed to hear and determine the suit where the value thereof exceeds Rs. 1,000 or the matter involved is of the nature mentioned in Section 77(3), First Group, of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), and in other cases may send the suit to an Assistant Collector of the first grade for decision.
FIRST GROUP
(a)
(b)
(c) SECOND GROUP
(d) suit by a tenant to establish a claim to a right of occupancy, or by a landlord to prove that a tenant has no such a right;
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m) THIRD GROUP
(n)
(o) (P) It was submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 77(3)(d) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, only Revenue Court has the jurisdiction to declare whether (a) has or (a) has not right of occupancy. In support of this submission, he drew my attention to Raghbir Singh v. Beli Ram, (1967)69 P.L.R.D. 396 and Jiwan v. Ram Sarup (dead) through his LRs., (1988-1)118 P.L.R. 349. In Raghbir Singh's case (supra), it was held that "suit in which the dispute is with regard to the nature of the tenancy i.e. whether the plaintiffs are occupancy tenants or tenants at will under the defendants is triable by the Revenue Court. The plaintiffs prayer that they were entitled to be declared as owners of the land under Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act is consequential upon the declaration they seek in regard to the nature of their tenancy. If the plaintiffs succeed in establishing that they are occupancy tenants and obtain a declaration of their rights through a Court of competent jurisdiction, they will automatically become the owners of the land is a mere surplusage. The real object of the suit is to obtain declaration about the nature of their tenancy. Such a suit is triable by a Revenue Court." In Jiwan's cases (supra) it was held that "suit in civil Court seeking declaration to be owner in possession claiming that plaintiff is in possession of the suit land as occupancy tenant and so also his predecessors-in-interest on payment of nominal rent and on coming into force of Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act with effect from 15th June, 1952, had automatically become owner of suit land. Question whether plaintiff was occupancy tenant or tenant-at-will has to be decided by Revenue Court only and not by Civil Court. Claim of plaintiff that he was entitled to be declared owner of suit land on the basis of his being occupancy tenant, consequential to determination of nature of his tenancy, nature of tenancy has to be determined by a Revenue Court only and as such suit is not triable by the civil Court." In Raghbir Singh's case (supra), learned Judge held in para No. 9 of his judgment as under: -
"The dispute in the present case is with regard to the nature of the plaintiffs' tenancy i.e. whether the plaintiffs are occupancy tenants or tenants-at-will under the defendants-appellants. The plaintiffs prayer that they are entitled to be declared as owners of the land under Punjab Act VIII of 1953 is consequential upon the declaration they seek in regard to the nature of their tenancy. If the plaintiffs succeed in establishing that they are occupancy tenants and obtain a declaration of their rights through a Court of competent jurisdiction, they will automatically become the owners of the land. In a way, therefore, their prayer for relief of declaration of their title as owners of the land under Punjab Act VIII of 1953 is a mere surplusage. The real object of the suit is to obtain a declaration about the nature of their tenancy."
6. In Sham Singh v. Amarjit Singh, AIR 1931 Lahore 362 also it was held that "such a suit was triable by Revenue Court alone." Learned counsel for the petitioners thus submitted that in the suit brought by the plaintiffs, the nature of tenancy required adjudication and if they are found to be occupancy tenants, the natural consequence will be that they are owners in view of the coming into force of Act VIII of 1953 and the plaintiffs were not required to claim declaration of ownership. They were merely required to claim that they were occupancy tenants as defined in Sections 5, 6 and 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act and such a claim is cognizable by the Revenue Court and the moment the Revenue Court declares that they were occupancy tenants since before the coming into force of Act VIII of 1953, it will follow that their rights of tenancy would become enlarged into full ownership rights. It was also submitted by him that where the jurisdiction of the civil Court has been expressly excluded or such exclusion has to be inferred by implication, civil Court shall have no jurisdiction. In support of this submission, he drew my attention to S. Vanathan Muthuraja v. Ramalingam alias Krishnamurthy Gurukkal and Ors., 1997(6) Supreme Court Cases 143.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that suit for declaration that they had become owners of the land in suit of which they were occupancy tenants since before the coming into force of Act VIII of 1953 with the coming into force of this Act, is cognizable by Civil Court. In support of this submission, he drew my attention to Dinu v. Nasib khan and Ors., 1975 PLJ 316 where it was held that "where suit was filed in a civil Court for declaration that the plaintiff has become occupancy tenant under Sections 5 and 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act and consequently full fledged owner of the suit land under the provisions of Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, such a suit is cognizable by the Civil Court as the main dispute in the case is as to whether the plaintiff has Or has not become the owner of the land in dispute. Obviously, the decision of such a question is a matter of title and is to be decided by a Civil Court and not by a Revenue Court and for deciding that question, the Court will have to see if the conditions prescribed by the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953, have been fulfilled by the tenant claiming the ownership of land, as in substance, the plaintiff is to seek declaration that he has become the owner of the land in dispute within the scope of that Act, so this suit is cognizable by a Civil Court and not by a Revenue Court." He drew my attention to Amin Lal v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Haryana and Ors., (1972)74 P.L.R. 96 where it was held that "civil Court has jurisdiction to decide whether the plaintiffs are proved to be occupancy tenants or not so as to be declared statutory owners. A suit in which right of property is beyond doubt suit is within the cognizance of the Civil Court."
8. In my opinion, this suit was not cognizable by the Civil Court as it was for declaration that the plaintiffs have become owners because of the enlargement of their rights of occupancy tenancy in the land into full ownership rights because of the coming into force of the Act VIII of 1953, As to whether they were occupancy tenants, when Act No. VIII of 1953 came into force, that is a matter cognizable by Revenue Court under Section 77(3)(d) of the Punjab Tenancy Act. Such a declaration whether a person was or was not occupancy tenant as defined in Punjab Tenancy Act as on 15.6.1952, cannot be given by Civil Court. After such declaration is given by the Revenue Court, there is Section 3 of Act No. 8 of 1953 under which vesting of proprietary rights in the occupancy tenant takes place and corresponding rights of landlord are extinguished. If Civil Court is held to have jurisdiction that would be going against the intention of the Legislature reflected in Section 77(3)(d) of the Act 16 of 1887. If it is held that Civil Court can declare that the occupancy rights have been enlarged into full ownership rights with the coming into force of Act VIII of 1953 that would be going against the intention of the Legislature which created special forums for carrying the scheme of Act No. 8 of 1953. Section 10 of the Act No. 8 of 1953 has created bar of jurisdiction.
9. For the reasons given above, this revision succeeds and is allowed. It is held that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter. Trial Court is directed to return the plaint for presentation to the-Revenue Court. Revenue Court will proceed further and decide the matter according to law.