The Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for perpetual injunction to restrain interference with possession of land that was regranted to the plaintiffs under the Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958, even though the defendants claim the land was unoccupied and allotted to them by the Tahsildar.

Headnote:
INJUNCTION - REGRANT OF INAM LANDS - BOMBAY INFERIOR VILLAGE WATANS ABOLITION ACT, 1958 - SECTIONS 4, 5, 6, 11 - BOMBAY REVENUE JURISDICTION ACT, 1876 - SECTIONS 4, 5, 6, 11 - CIVIL COURT JURISDICTION - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs sought a perpetual injunction restraining defendants from interfering with their possession of land that was originally Inam land, regranted to them under the Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958, after the abolition of Inams. Defendants claimed the land was unoccupied and allotted to them by the Tahsildar. Both lower courts dismissed the suits, holding that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to question the Revenue Officers' order.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court found that the land in question was regranted to the plaintiffs under the Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958, and that the Tahsildar's subsequent allotment of the same land to the defendants was without jurisdiction and did not confer any rights on them. The Court held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suits and that the Tahsildar or the Government need not have been impleaded as party defendants.
Issues: 1. Whether the land in question was regranted to the plaintiffs under the Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958? 2. Whether the Tahsildar's allotment of the land to the defendants was valid? 3. Whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suits?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court relied on Exhibit 23, an order issued by the Tahsildar pursuant to the Commissioner of Bombay's Order, which unequivocally allotted the land in question to the plaintiffs. 2. The Court held that the Tahsildar had no authority to allot land that had already been regranted to the plaintiffs under the Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958, and that his order was therefore without jurisdiction. 3. The Court held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suits, as section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876, which prevents suits against the Government without filing appeals, does not apply to suits against private parties, and section 4 of the same Act, which bars the Civil Court's jurisdiction over certain matters, does not apply to the distribution of land under the Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the lower courts' judgments, and granted a decree of perpetual injunction in favor of the plaintiffs, restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession of the land.

JUDGMENT - K. MADHAVA REDDY, C.J.:---These two second appeals filed by the plaintiffs arise out of Regular Civil Suit No. 77 of 1976 and Regular Civil Suit No. 78 of 1976, on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sahada.

2. The subject matter of Second Appeal No. 148 of 1983 which arises out of Regular Civil Suit No. 77 of 1976, is an extent of 5 Acres 6 Gunthas of land in Survey No. 60 corresponding to Gat No. 103 of Mhaswad Village, Taluka Shahada, and the subject matter of the other second appeal viz. Second Appeal No. 149 of 1983 is an extend of 3 Acres 7 Gunthas of land in Survey No. 63 corresponding to Gat. No. 6 of the same village.

3. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession over the suit lands. It is their case that these lands were originally Inam lands. On abolition of Inams they were regranted to them on payment of the occupation charges under section 4 of the Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958. Under an Order dated 23-11-1967 issued by the Tahsildar, Shahada, pursuant to the Commissioner of Bombay's Order No. 865-WTN-B-1290 dated 17th September, 1967 Exhibit 23, 5 Acres 6 Gunthas in Survey No. 60 were regranted to the plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No. 77 of 1976 and 8 Acres 7 Gunthas were regranted to the plaintiffs in Survey No. 63 in Regular Civil Suit No. 78 of 1976. They have been in possession of the lands ever since, but the defendants/ respondents started unathorisedly interfering with their possession.

4. It is the case of the defendants that these lands were not Inam lands, but were unoccupied lands. The Tahsildar by his order dated 27th April, 1976 allotted each of the defendants 3 acres 7 gunthas in Survey No. 67. In pursuance of these allotments, they entered into possession of the land and are cultivating the same. The plaintiffs are not in possession and are not entitled to an injunction. They also took up the plea that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit.

5. Even while holding that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit lands on 26th April, 1976 and the Court had jurisdiction to try the suits, both the courts have dismissed the suits. The trial Court, however, had come to the conclusion that the former Inam lands cultivated by the plaintiff's ancestors became Government lands available for allotment on abolition of Inams and that possession was handed over to the defendants by the Circle Officer on 27th April, 1976. The Appellate Court found that the lands were regranted to the plaintiffs under the Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act and were rightly in possession of the plaintiffs. But the Appeal Court was of the view that the legality of the order passed by the Revenue Officers cannot be questioned in Civil Court and accordingly dismissed the Appeal.

6. The finding of the trial Appellate Court that the land in question also allotted to the plaintiffs under the Maharashtra Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958 must be accepted as correct, in view of Exhibit 23 dated 23-11-1967. Under that letter the entire extend of 15 acres 34 Gunthas in Survey No. 63 was unequivocally allotted to the plaintiff in one suit and another and the entire extent of 10 Acres 11 Gunthas in Survey No. 60 in favour of the plaintiffs in the other suit and some others. Thus the total extent in Survey No. 63 and Survey No. 60 were regranted as early as in 1967 to the plaintiffs herein and to some others, who are not the defendants herein. The lands having been regranted on payment of the price mentioned therein and amount having been paid, the regrantees became the owners of the suit lands. On and from 23-11-1967 there was no land in Survey Nos. 60 and 63 which could be treated as unoccupied land and available for allotment. No doubt the Tahsildar purported to allot 3 Acres of land in Survey No. 60 and 3 Acres 7 Gunthas of land to each of the three defendants in Survey No. 63 in Regular Civil Su

Click Here to Read the rest of this document