1. Suit for recovery of possession involving the validity of a bhumidhari sanad under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 1020
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. M. Punchhi, CJI., A.P.Misra : G.B.Pattanaik, JJ.
Chheda Singh
Versus
Town Area Committee, Akbarpur
Case No. : 1235 of 1984
Date of Decision : 9/23/98
Civil court jurisdiction is not ousted under the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act if the matter is not listed in Schedule II, or if the party lacks the basic qualification of cultivatory possession required to be a tenant under the Act.
Headnote:(A) Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 331 and Section 137-A - Schedule II, Columns 3 and 4 - Jurisdiction of civil court - Ouster of jurisdiction only occurs if the matter falls under Column 3 or 4 of Schedule II - Proceedings for cancellation of bhumidhari under Section 137-A are not referred to in Column 3 - Ouster of jurisdiction would only arise if the defendant was a tenant under the Act or possessed basic facts to qualify as such before the Act's commencement - If the party was not in cultivatory possession prior to the Act, the entry as Sirdar cannot stand and civil court jurisdiction is not ousted. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
A suit for recovery of possession was decreed by the trial court and confirmed by the first appellate court and the High Court. The appellant contended that the civil court lacked jurisdiction because the validity of the bhumidhari sanad had been raised in an earlier proceeding and had become final. It was found that the appellant was not in cultivatory possession of the disputed land prior to the coming into force of the relevant Act and had been wrongly recorded as Sirdar.
Findings of Court:
The jurisdiction of the civil court is not ousted as the matter of cancellation of bhumidhari is not covered under the specific exclusions of the Schedule. Since the appellant lacked cultivatory possession prior to the Act, the claim of being a Sirdar is unsustainable.
Issues: Whether the civil court's jurisdiction is ousted in a matter concerning the validity of a bhumidhari sanad when the party was not in cultivatory possession prior to the enactment of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that civil court jurisdiction is only excluded if the case falls under Column 3 or 4 of Schedule II of Section 331 of the Act. As Section 137-A is not listed in Column 3 and the appellant did not meet the basic criteria of cultivatory possession to qualify as a tenant/Sirdar, the civil court retains jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the civil court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the status of a Bhumidhar when the validity of the bhumidhari sanad was previously determined. (Para 1 )
3. Civil court jurisdiction is not ousted for bhumidhari cancellation under Section 137-A, especially where the party lacked cultivatory possession prior to the Act. (Para 2 )
4. Civil court jurisdiction is only excluded under Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, if the matter falls under Schedule II. (Para 2 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 3 )
6. When is the jurisdiction of the civil court ousted under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950?
Civil court jurisdiction is excluded only if the matter falls under Column 3 or Column 4 of Schedule II, as per Section 331 of the Act. (Para 2 )
7. Does the civil court have jurisdiction over the cancellation of bhumidhari under Section 137-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950?
Yes, because proceedings for the cancellation of bhumidhari under Section 137-A are not referred to in Column 3 of Schedule II, meaning jurisdiction is not ousted. (Para 2 )
8. How does the fact of cultivatory possession affect the ouster of civil court jurisdiction under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950?
Ouster of jurisdiction arises if the defendant was a tenant under the Act based on facts existing before the Act's commencement. If the party was not in cultivatory possession prior to the Act, the civil court retains jurisdiction. (Para 2 )
(1) THE defendant-appellant has challenged the concurrent finding recorded by all the courts below. The trial court decreed the suit of the respondents for recovery of possession which was confirmed by the first appellate court and also by the High court in the second appeal. The only point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that once question of the validity of bhumidhari sanad being raised by the respondent in an earlier proceeding and that having become final, the question raised now that the appellant is not the Bhumidhar of the disputed land cannot be raised and for this the civil court would have no jurisdiction.
(2) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and after giving our consideration, we do not find any merit in the submission. The jurisdiction of the civil court is only ousted by virtue of Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. Under it, the jurisdiction of the civil court is only excluded in case it falls under Column 4 or under Column 3 of Schedule II. So far as proceeding for cancellation of the bhumidhari is concerned, it is a matter covered under Section 137-A of the said Act, which is not referred in Column 3 of the said Schedule. This apart, ouster of civil court jurisdiction under the said Act would only arise if the defendant could be a tenant under the said Act or in other words, there existed such basic fact, before the coming in force of the said Act, to qualify him to be such. We find that the finding recorded is that the appellant was not even in cultivatory possession over the land in dispute prior to the coming of the said Act. The bhumidhari sanad was granted in view of his being wrongly recorded as SirdaR.Once the basic fact is recorded by the courts below that he was not in cultivatory possession prior to the Act, the question of any entry as Sirdar cannot stand and for adjudicating this, the civil court jurisdiction is not ousted.
(3) THE appeal has no merit and is dismissed.
