Case Note & Summary
The appeals arose from two civil suits challenging an order dated 17.10.1978 passed by the Prescribed Authority under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, relating to 4/5th share in land measuring 643 Bighas and 4 Biswas in village Umedpura, District Sirsa. The plaintiffs in C.S. No.24C/1979 sought a declaration that the order was null and void, but the Trial Court dismissed the suit as barred. The First Appellate Court upheld that dismissal, leading to R.S.A. No.40/1984 in the High Court. In C.S. No.62C/1979, another set of plaintiffs similarly challenged the same order, and the Trial Court decreed the suit; the First Appellate Court dismissed the defendants' appeal, leading to R.S.A. No.2712/1987. The High Court clubbed both second appeals and, by a common judgment dated 28.01.2008, dismissed R.S.A. No.40/1984 and allowed R.S.A. No.2712/1987, effectively holding both suits barred. The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined Section 26 of the Act, which bars civil courts from entertaining matters required to be dealt with under the Act, and Section 9 CPC, which preserves jurisdiction except where expressly or impliedly barred. The Court held that the civil suits challenging the Prescribed Authority's order were expressly barred by Section 26(b) of the Act, and the proper remedy was an appeal/revision under Section 18 of the Act. The Court found no merit in the appeals and dismissed them, concurring with the High Court's reasoning.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Bar of Jurisdiction - Section 9 CPC, Section 26 Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 - Civil suits challenging order of Prescribed Authority under the Act are barred by Section 26(b) of the Act - The remedy lies in appeal/revision under Section 18 of the Act - Held that the High Court was justified in dismissing the suits as barred (Paras 17-21).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing R.S.A. No.40/1984 and allowing R.S.A. No.2712/1987, i.e., whether civil suits challenging orders passed under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 are barred by Section 26 of the Act.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, holding that the civil suits were barred by Section 26 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, and the High Court was justified in its judgment. The Court concurred with the High Court's reasoning and found no merit in the appeals.
Law Points
- Bar of jurisdiction of civil courts
- Section 26 Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act
- 1972
- Section 9 CPC
- Remedy lies in appeal/revision under Section 18 of the Act
Case Details
Civil Appeal No.7426 of 2011 with Civil Appeal No.3145 of 2019 (arising out of S.L.P.(c) No.9723/2009)
Abhay Manohar Sapre, Dinesh Maheshwari
Meg Raj (dead) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors.
Manphool (Dead) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeals against High Court judgment dismissing one second appeal and allowing another, arising from two civil suits challenging an order of the Prescribed Authority under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972.
Remedy Sought
The appellants (plaintiffs in the civil suits) sought a declaration that the order dated 17.10.1978 passed by the Prescribed Authority under the Act is null and void.
Filing Reason
The plaintiffs challenged the order of the Prescribed Authority under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, which related to ceiling proceedings on the suit land.
Previous Decisions
In C.S. No.24C/1979, the Trial Court dismissed the suit as barred; the First Appellate Court upheld that dismissal. In C.S. No.62C/1979, the Trial Court decreed the suit; the First Appellate Court dismissed the defendants' appeal. The High Court dismissed R.S.A. No.40/1984 and allowed R.S.A. No.2712/1987.
Issues
Whether the civil suits challenging the order of the Prescribed Authority under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 are barred by Section 26 of the Act.
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing R.S.A. No.40/1984 and allowing R.S.A. No.2712/1987.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellants argued that the civil suits were maintainable and the order of the Prescribed Authority was null and void.
The respondents contended that the civil suits were barred by Section 26 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi
Section 26(b) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 expressly bars civil courts from entertaining suits challenging orders passed under the Act. The remedy lies in appeal/revision under Section 18 of the Act. Therefore, civil suits challenging the Prescribed Authority's order are not maintainable.
Judgment Excerpts
Section 26 of the Act reads as under: “ 26. Bar of Jurisdiction – (1) No civil court shall have jurisdiction to (a) entertain or proceed with a suit for specific performance of a contract for transfer of land which affects the right of the State Government to the surplus area under this Act; or (b) settle, decide or deal with any matter which is under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Financial Commissioner, the Commissioner, the Collector or the Prescribed Authority. (2) No order of the Financial Commissioner, the Commissioner, the Collector or the prescribed authority made under or in pursuance of this Act shall be called in question in any court.”
Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 provides that the Courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.
Section 26 (b) of the Act clearly bars filing of civil suit to examine the legality of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority under the Act.
Procedural History
The dispute originated from ceiling proceedings under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, resulting in an order dated 17.10.1978 by the Prescribed Authority. Two civil suits were filed: C.S. No.24C/1979 (dismissed by Trial Court on 06.11.1981, upheld by First Appellate Court on 17.09.1983, leading to R.S.A. No.40/1984) and C.S. No.62C/1979 (decreed by Trial Court on 15.04.1985, upheld by First Appellate Court on 23.07.1987, leading to R.S.A. No.2712/1987). The High Court clubbed the second appeals and passed a common judgment on 28.01.2008, dismissing R.S.A. No.40/1984 and allowing R.S.A. No.2712/1987. The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave.
Acts & Sections
- Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972: Section 26, Section 18
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 9
