Judgment

BHARGAVA, J.: The appellant Hatti was declared a Bhumidar of some land belonging to the respondent Sunder Singh, under section 13 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act No. 8 of 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The respondent then brought a suit in the Civil Court claiming three reliefs. The first relief claimed was for a declaration that the declaration of Bhumidari issued in the name of the appellant with respect to the land in dispute was wrong, illegal, without jurisdiction, ultra vires, void and ineffective against the respondent. The second relief was that the respondent be declared entitled to Bhumidar rights under section 11 of the Act; and the third relief was for possession of the land. The suit was brought on the allegation that the respondent was the owner of the land, while the appellant had no rights in it. The land along with some other land was on Mustrajri with one Sultan Singh for a period of 20 years ending in June, 1952, and the appellant had been admitted as a tenant-at-will by the Mustrajar. On the expiry of the period of 20 years in June, 1952, the Mustrajri stood terminated and the original Mustrajar s heirs left the land. The appellant, however, continued in possession, but, since he was a tenant-at-will of the Mustrajar, he had no rights in the land after the expiry of the Mustrajri. He was asked to surrender possession but failed to do so. On the other hand, he was wrongly granted the declaration under S. 13 of the Act that he was a Bhumidar when he had no rights as tenant in the land at all. The main defence taken on behalf of the appellant was that he was a non-occupancy tenant and he was entitled to the declaration of his Bhumidari rights. Apart from the issues on merits, one issue was raised by the appellant that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the provisions of section 185 of the Act. The trial Court held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not barred. On merits, the finding recorded was that the respondent was the proprietor of the land, but no declaration could be granted that he became Bhumidar under S. 11 of the Act, as that relief could only be granted by the revenue authorities under the Act. It was held that he was, however, entitled to possession in exercise of his right as proprietor, so that a decree for possession was granted in his favour. That decree was upheld, in appeal, by the District Judge and, in second appeal, by a learned single Judge of the High Court of Punjab. The Letters Patent appeal before the Division Bench was also dismissed, so that the appellant has now come up to this Court in this appeal by special leave.

2. The only point that was argued before the Division Bench in the Letters Patent appeal was that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, so that, in this appeal, we are also concerned with this issue alone. Section 185 (1) of the Act, on which reliance has been placed for urging that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction, is as follows:

"185. (1) Except as provided by or under this Act, no court other than a court mentioned in column 7 of Schedule I shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure,1908, take cognizance of any suit, application, or proceedings mentioned in column 3 thereof."

The relevant entries in the First Schedule, which require consideration, are Numbers 4, 19 and 28. Item 4 mentions applications for declaration of Bhumidari rights in column 3 and, inter alia, refers to sections 11 and 13 of the Act. For these applications, there is no period of limitation prescribed at all, and the Court of original jurisdiction is that of the Revenue Assistant. Item 19 refers to section 84 of the Act, and relates to suit for ejectment of a person occupying land without title and for damages. The three sub-clauses mention that the suit can be instituted (i) by a Bhumidar declared under Chapter III of the Act or by an Asami falling under section 6 of the Act where