Case Note & Summary
The case involves a civil reference made by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur to the Bombay High Court under Section 13 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876. The reference arose from a suit filed by Gopinath s/o. Ganpatrao Pensalwar (the plaintiff/appellant) against the State of Maharashtra and the Tahsildar, Latur (the defendants/respondents). The plaintiff sought a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from collecting or recovering non-agricultural charges for the years 1968 to 1989, as claimed in notices dated 13th March 1990 and 23rd March 1990. The plaintiff claimed to be the owner of a plot bearing city survey No.5442 at Latur, admeasuring 3983 square meters, purchased for residential and commercial purposes. The Civil Judge expressed doubt whether he was precluded by the Act of 1876 from taking cognizance of the suit. The High Court, after examining the provisions of the Act, held that the suit was not barred because it did not challenge any assessment or order under the revenue laws but merely sought to restrain recovery of charges that were allegedly not leviable. The court answered the reference accordingly, holding that the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Bar under Section 13 of Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876 - Suit for perpetual injunction restraining recovery of non-agricultural charges - The Civil Judge doubted whether he could entertain the suit due to the bar under Section 13 of the Act of 1876 - The High Court held that the suit was not barred as it did not seek to set aside or modify any assessment or order under the revenue laws, but merely sought to restrain recovery of charges allegedly not leviable - Held that the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur is precluded by the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876 from taking cognizance of a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the State from recovering non-agricultural charges.
Final Decision
The High Court answered the reference by holding that the civil court is not barred from entertaining the suit for perpetual injunction as it does not seek to set aside or modify any assessment or order under the revenue laws.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of civil court
- bar of suit under Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act
- 1876
- Section 13
- non-agricultural assessment
- perpetual injunction
