Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a civil suit concerning title to agricultural lands situated in Uttar Pradesh, which were admittedly governed by the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951. The litigation reached the Supreme Court by special leave after the High Court dismissed the second appeal in limine. The appellant, who was the defendant in the original suit, had purchased 0.7 acres out of a total area of 2.17 acres. The abadi site comprised one kachha kotha and a ghar with boundary walls. The plaintiff had filed a suit in the ordinary civil court seeking adjudication of title, but the appellant in his written statement expressly raised an objection that the suit was barred under Section 331 of the Act and that the sale was not barred under Section 168-A. The trial court and the first appellate court did not accept the objection, and the High Court dismissed the second appeal in limine. Before the Supreme Court, the respondent did not file a counter-affidavit despite time being granted, and consequently the right to file a counter-affidavit was forfeited. The Court granted leave and considered the appeal on merits. The appellant relied on the earlier decision in Chandrika Misir & Anr. v. Bhaiya Lal, (1974) 1 SCR 290, which had dealt with the identical question. The Supreme Court noted that the controversy was no longer res integra. It extracted the ratio from Chandrika Misir, where it was held that Sections 209 and 331 of the Act, read together, showed that a suit of this nature had to be filed in a special court created under the Act within the period of limitation specially prescribed under the Rules, and the jurisdiction of ordinary civil courts to entertain the suit was absolutely barred. The Court applied that ratio to the facts of the case: the lands were covered by the Act, and the appellant had raised an express objection as to the jurisdiction of the civil court. Therefore, the civil court inherently lacked jurisdiction to go into the question of title. The Supreme Court accordingly allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit insofar as it related to the 0.7 acres of land purchased by the appellant, while making no order as to costs. The decision re-affirmed the principle that where special legislation creates a special forum and bars the jurisdiction of civil courts, the ordinary civil court cannot entertain a suit even if the objection was raised only in defence. The rule of law laid down established that compliance with the statutory bar is mandatory and that a civil court's lack of jurisdiction is inherent and cannot be cured by consent or waiver. The judgment thus underscored the supremacy of special statutory remedies over general civil jurisdiction in matters governed by land reforms legislation.
Headnote
A) Land Reforms - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts - Bar of jurisdiction under U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 - Sections 209 and 331 of the Act - The civil court was held to lack inherent jurisdiction over a suit for title to lands admitted to be covered by the Act, where the defendant expressly raised objection under Section 331. Following Chandrika Misir & Anr. v. Bhaiya Lal, (1974) 1 SCR 290, the Supreme Court reiterated that Sections 209 and 331 read together showed that such a suit had to be filed in the special court under the Act within the prescribed limitation and that the jurisdiction of ordinary civil courts was absolutely barred. Held, the appeal was allowed and the suit dismissed insofar as it related to 0.7 acres purchased by the appellant (Paras not available).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain a suit for title over lands governed by the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951, in view of the bar under Sections 209 and 331.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; suit dismissed insofar as it relates to 0.7 acres of land purchased by appellant; no costs.
Law Points
- Sections 209 and 331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act
- 1951
- read together bar jurisdiction of civil courts in suits covered by the Act
- such suits must be filed in special court under the Act within prescribed limitation
- civil court inherently lacks jurisdiction when lands covered by Act and objection raised
