1. Land declared surplus under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 — Dispute over whether possession was taken before the Repeal Act, 1999. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 845
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of M.P Principal Seat at Jabalpur)
R. SUBHASH REDDY, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
State of M.P. – Appellant
Versus
Ghisilal – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2153 of 2012
Decided On : 22-11-2021
Important Points
The jurisdiction of civil courts is excluded by implication in suits relating to land subject to ceiling proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, as it is a self-contained code. Civil courts cannot declare final orders passed by the competent authority under the Act as illegal.
Subject
Land Acquisition - Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act
Act Referred
URBAN LAND CEILING AND REGULATIONS ACT: S.10, S.10(1), S.10(3)
Headnote
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – Section 10(1), 10(3) – Repeal Act – Relief by issuing appropriate directions – Agricultural land bearing Survey Nos. 171 to 184, 214, 217 and 284 admeasuring 17.18 acres situated, District Bhopal, was recorded – In aforesaid land, was having 1/4th share – As said land was covered by Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 has filed declaration as contemplated under provisions of ULC Act – Competent authority has determined an extent of 16000.32 square meters of land as vacant land and same was declared surplus – Consequent to passing of final orders by the competent authority, a notification under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act was issued and the notification as contemplated under Section 10(3) of ULC Act was published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette, Part-III – Held, In this case, it is clear from orders passed by the competent authorities, that original declarant was holding excess land to the extent of 16000.32 square meters – When orders passed by competent authority and consequential notifications issued under Section 10(1) and 10(3) of ULC Act have become final, it was not open for respondent to file a suit seeking declaration, as prayed for. As court are of view that jurisdiction of the civil courts is barred by necessary implication, trial court fell in error in entertaining the suit, as filed by respondent and even the first appellate court and second appellate court have not considered various grounds raised by appellant in proper perspective – Although it is contended by learned counsel appearing for respondent to mould relief, it is trite principle that where suit is filed with particular pleadings and reliefs, it is to be considered with reference to pleadings on record and the reliefs claimed in suit only – Judgments relied on by learned counsel for respondent would not render any assistance to support case of the respondent – As court are in agreement with view taken by this Court earlier in case of Competent Authority, Calcutta, under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (supra) this appeal is to be allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by trial court as confirmed by appellate court on ground that such suit itself was not maintainable – Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Sourabh Mishra, AAG Sandeep Sharma, Sunny Choudhary, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Pragati Neekhra, Advocate
For the Appellant(s) :Sourabh Mishra, AAG Sandeep Sharma, Sunny Choudhary, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Pragati Neekhra, Advocate
Table of Contents
2. State contends possession was taken and civil suit is barred; respondent argues possession was not validly taken and seeks declaration of exemption. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 )
3. Panchnama signed by the party constitutes physical possession; ULC Act is a self-contained code excluding civil court jurisdiction over final ceiling orders. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 )
4. Civil court jurisdiction is impliedly barred from declaring orders passed by competent authorities under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, as illegal. (Para 13 , 14 )
5. Appeal allowed; judgments of the trial court, first appellate court, and High Court set aside; suit dismissed. (Para 15 , 16 )
6. Does the execution of a panchnama constitute the taking of physical possession of land?
Yes, when possession of land is taken by drawing a panchnama, it amounts to taking physical possession. Anyone claiming possession thereafter is treated as a trespasser with no right to possess land that vests with the State free from all encumbrances. (Para 12 )
7. Can a civil court declare orders passed by competent authorities under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, as illegal?
No, the ULC Act is a self-contained code providing for appeal and revision. Consequently, the jurisdiction of civil courts to try suits relating to land subject to ceiling proceedings is excluded by implication, and they cannot declare final orders as illegal or non est. (Para 13 , 14 )
8. Can a court mould the relief granted in a suit beyond the specific pleadings and reliefs claimed?
No, it is a trite principle that where a suit is filed with particular pleadings and reliefs, the court must consider the matter only with reference to the pleadings on record and the reliefs claimed in the suit. (Para 15 )
JUDGMENT :
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.
1. This Civil Appeal is preferred by the appellant-State of Madhya Pradesh, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 08.11.2006 passed in Second Appeal No. 129 of 2006. By the aforesaid order, the High Court has dismissed the Second Appeal, preferred by the appellant herein confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Bhopal, in Civil Appeal No. 37-A/2005 dated 23.07.2005 and the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2004 passed by the learned XIIth Civil Judge, Class-II, Bhopal, in Civil Suit No. 138-A/2004.
2. Necessary facts, in brief, are as under:
The agricultural land bearing Survey Nos. 171 to 184, 214, 217 and 284 admeasuring 17.18 acres situated at Village Bag Sevania, Tehsil Huzur, District Bhopal, was recorded in the name of Late Padam Singh as a Bhoomi Swami. In the aforesaid land, late Padam Singh was having 1/4th share. As the said land was covered by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for convenience sake, hereinafter referred to as ‘ULC Act’) Late Padam Singh has filed declaration as contemplated under the provisions of the ULC Act. The competent authority has determined an extent of 16000.32 square meters of land as vacant land and the same was declared surplus. Consequent to passing of final orders by the competent authority, a notification under Section 10 (1) of the ULC Act was issued on 16.09.1983 and the notification as contemplated under Section 10 (3) of the ULC Act was published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette, Part-III dated 20.01.1984.
3. It is the case of the appellant herein that after following the necessary procedure contemplated under the ULC Act, possession of the surplus land was taken. Thereafter, the revenue entries were corrected showing the State as owner to the extent of the surplus land declared by the competent authority. It is also the case of the appellant that as the possession was already taken prior to coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 (for convenience sake, hereinafter referred to as ‘Repeal Act’) the said land was allotted for the purpose of constructing dwelling houses to the poor.
4. The respondent herein had filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction on 09.09.2003, claiming himself to be the sole heir and adopted son of Late Padam Singh. The relief in the suit reads as under:
“(1) That the surplus land of 16000.32 square meters which has been declared surplus, declaration be exempted under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 because possession has not been taken.
(2) That the defendant be restrained from interfering with the possession of the respondent.”
5. The Trial Court i.e. XII Civil Judge, Class-II, Bhopal, by the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2004, decreed the suit on the ground that possession has not been taken, before the Repeal Act has come into force. Trial court also granted consequential relief restraining the appellant herein from interfering with the possession of the respondent. As against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the matter was carried by way of first appeal, by the appellant, before the IV Additional District Judge, Bhopal and the Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal by the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2005. As against the same, the appellant has carried the matter by way of Second Appeal before the High Court. The Second Appeal is also dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree dated 08.11.2006.
6. The aforesaid impugned judgment is questioned in this appeal mainly on the ground that after necessary notifications were issued under Section 10 of the ULC Act, appellant has taken possession and utilised the subject land for construction of houses for the poor by spending huge amounts. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent has not questioned the orders passed by the competent authority declaring the land as surplus land, it is not open to seek declaration by the respond
