Case Note & Summary
The petitioners filed Regular Civil Suit No.175/2011 for declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction in respect of suit property at Survey No.52/A, claiming it as ancestral property. They contended that the defendant No.1 purchased land from Yadav Shinde but with wrong boundaries, and that the Fragmentation Officer, in collusion with defendants, prepared false records showing defendants in possession of excess land. The defendants filed an application under Section 9A CPC for framing a preliminary issue on jurisdiction. The Trial Court framed the issue: 'Whether this Court have jurisdiction to try the suit under Section 36(A) of Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation Holdings Act?' and held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction, returning the plaint for presentation before proper forum. The Appellate Court upheld this order. The petitioners challenged both orders by way of writ petition. The legal issue was whether the bar under Section 36(A) read with Section 36(B) of the Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation Holdings Act, 1947 applies to the suit. The petitioners argued that the suit is for declaration of ownership, which is within civil court jurisdiction, and that Section 36(B) allows reference of issues to the Consolidation Officer. The respondents contended that the suit challenges the consolidation scheme which has attained finality. The High Court held that the suit does not directly challenge the consolidation scheme but seeks declaration of ownership based on title documents. The bar under Section 36(A) applies only when the suit directly challenges the consolidation scheme. Since the suit involves issues of ownership, the Civil Court has jurisdiction and can refer any issue under the Act to the Consolidation Officer under Section 36(B). The Court set aside the orders of the courts below and directed the Trial Court to proceed with the suit, framing an issue under Section 36(B) if necessary.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction - Bar under Fragmentation Act - Sections 36(A) and 36(B) of Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation Holdings Act, 1947 - The suit for declaration of ownership and injunction does not directly challenge the consolidation scheme but seeks to establish title based on sale deeds and ancestral property - The Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide issues of ownership and can refer any issue arising under the Act to the Consolidation Officer under Section 36(B) - Held that the bar under Section 36(A) does not apply when the suit is for declaration of ownership and the consolidation scheme is not directly challenged (Paras 3, 10, 14). B) Civil Procedure - Reference to Consolidation Officer - Section 36(B) of Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation Holdings Act, 1947 - If any issue arises under the Act in a civil suit, the court can frame an issue and refer it to the Consolidation Officer for decision - The suit is not barred but maintainable with such reference - Held that the Trial Court erred in returning the plaint without considering Section 36(B) (Paras 10, 14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the bar under Section 36(A) read with Section 36(B) of the Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation Holdings Act, 1947 is applicable to the suit filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners?
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the orders of the Trial Court and Appellate Court, and directed the Trial Court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law, including framing an issue under Section 36(B) of the Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation Holdings Act, 1947 if necessary.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of Civil Court
- Bar under Section 36(A) and 36(B) of Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation Holdings Act
- 1947
- Declaration of ownership
- Reference to Consolidation Officer
