Back
1996 Supreme(SC) 1883
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.P. Singh and S.B. Majmudar, JJ.
CA No. 3667 of 1986
Decided On: 07.11.1 996
Azad and Others Appellants
versus
Dharampal and Others Respondent
Headnote:
Pepsu Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 - Surplus Lands - Jurisdiction of Civil Court
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were allotters of lands declared surplus under the Pepsu Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, 1955. The respondents, heirs of the original landholder, filed a suit alleging incomplete declaration of surplus lands and obtained a decree from the trial court, which was upheld by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The appellants challenged the judgment and decree of the trial court, court of appeal, and the High Court, arguing that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit based on Section 26(1)(b) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972.
Issues: Jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 26(1)(b) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the provisions of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 and its impact on the jurisdiction of the civil court in entertaining the suit filed by the respondents.
Final Decision: The court's final decision regarding the jurisdiction of the civil court in the suit filed by the respondents.
ORDER
1. The appellants are the allotters of the lands which had been declared surplus in the year 1960 under the provisions of the Pepsu Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, 1955. The plaintiffs-respondents (hereinafter referred to as "respondents") are the heirs of the original landholder Ganga Sahai who died on 17-5-1967.
2. It appears that the State Government allotted the lands in question in the year 1980 to the appellants treating them as landless. In the same year a suit was filed on behalf of the respondents, alleging that the declaration of the lands as surplus was not complete because the said lands had not been utilised and as such no allotment could have been made in favour of the appellants. That suit was decreed by the trial Court. The High Court dismissed the second appeal filed on behalf of the appellants.
3. In this appeal the judgment and decree of the trial court, court of appeal and the High Court have been challenged.
4. It was urged on behalf of the appellants that civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in question filed on behalf of the respondents, in view of Section 26(1)(b) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 which is as follows:
"26. Bar ofjurisdiction.- (1) No civil court shall have jurisdiction to-
