Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a civil suit filed by Respondent Nos.1 to 3 (original plaintiffs) against the Applicants (original defendants) and the State authorities. The plaintiffs claimed that their lands were acquired for the Tulsi Project in 1975, making them project affected persons. By order dated 4th November 2011, the Collector handed over possession of 40 R of land out of New Gat No.829 to them. The plaintiffs paid the purchase price and alleged that the defendants encroached upon the land. They sought possession and permanent injunction. The defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, contending that the civil court lacked jurisdiction due to the bar under Section 4A of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986. The Trial Court rejected the application, holding that the civil court has jurisdiction. The defendants challenged this order via Civil Revision Application under Section 115 CPC. The High Court examined the scope of Section 4A, which bars civil court jurisdiction only in respect of orders or proceedings under the Act. Since the suit was against private individuals for possession and did not challenge any order under the Act, the bar did not apply. The Court also noted that the Act does not provide a remedy for possession against private persons. Therefore, the civil court's jurisdiction is not ousted. The revision application was dismissed, upholding the Trial Court's order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Bar under Special Statute - Section 9 CPC, Section 4A of Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986 - The suit was filed by project affected persons for possession of land and injunction against private defendants who allegedly encroached. The Trial Court held it has jurisdiction. The High Court affirmed, ruling that the bar under Section 4A applies only to orders or proceedings under the Act, not to suits against private individuals for possession. The civil court's jurisdiction is not ousted when the dispute does not involve any order or proceeding under the Act. (Paras 1-19)
B) Land Acquisition - Project Affected Persons - Rehabilitation - Possession of Land - The plaintiffs' lands were acquired for Tulsi Project in 1975, and they were allotted 40 R of land by the Collector in 2011. The defendants allegedly encroached. The suit sought possession and injunction. The High Court held that the civil court can decide the issue of possession as it does not require adjudication under the Act. (Paras 2-19)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit filed by the plaintiffs for possession and injunction, in view of the bar under Section 4A of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, upholding the order of the Trial Court that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of civil court
- Bar of jurisdiction under special statute
- Maintainability of suit for possession against private parties
- Interpretation of Section 4A of Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act
- 1986
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (02) 69
Civil Revision Application No.533 of 2017
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi
Mr. Sandeep S. Koregave for the Applicants, Mr. Tanaji Mhatugade a/w Mr. Ranjit Shinde for Respondent Nos.1 to 3
Tukaram Dhondi Sutar (Since Deceased) Through Legal Heirs
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil Revision Application challenging the order of the Trial Court rejecting the defendants' application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Remedy Sought
The applicants (original defendants) sought to set aside the Trial Court's order dated 17th August 2017 which held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Filing Reason
The defendants contended that the civil court lacked jurisdiction due to the bar under Section 4A of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986.
Previous Decisions
The Trial Court (6th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur) passed an order on 17th August 2017 in Regular Civil Suit No.791 of 2016, holding that the Civil Court has jurisdiction.
Issues
Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit for possession and injunction filed by the plaintiffs, in view of the bar under Section 4A of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicants (defendants) argued that the suit is barred by Section 4A of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986, which ousts the jurisdiction of civil courts in respect of any order or proceeding under the Act.
The respondents (plaintiffs) contended that the suit is against private individuals for possession and injunction, and does not challenge any order under the Act, hence the civil court has jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
The bar under Section 4A of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986 applies only to orders or proceedings under the Act. Since the suit is against private defendants for possession and injunction and does not involve any order or proceeding under the Act, the civil court's jurisdiction is not ousted.
Judgment Excerpts
The bar under Section 4A of the Act is only in respect of the orders or proceedings under the Act. The suit filed by the plaintiffs is against the private defendants for possession and injunction and does not involve any order or proceeding under the Act.
The civil court's jurisdiction is not ousted when the dispute does not require adjudication under the Act.
Procedural History
The plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No.791 of 2016 before the 6th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur, seeking possession and injunction. The defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The Trial Court rejected the application on 17th August 2017. The defendants filed Civil Revision Application No.533 of 2017 under Section 115 CPC before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 21st February 2018.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 115, Order 7 Rule 11
- Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986: Section 4A
