Jurisdiction of Civil Court was barred by Section 46 of the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960.

1. By this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC'), the appellant has challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment & decree dated 19.7.95 passed by the 7th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, in Civil Appeal No.75A/91, affirming the judgment & decree of dismissal of civil suit dated 28.2.1987 passed by the 2nd Civil Judge Class-I, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No.32A/1964.

2. Present second appeal was admitted on 11.10.95 on the following substantial question of law:-

"Whether the Courts below were justified in holding that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred by the provisions of section 46 of M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960?"

3. As per pleading of the parties, present appellant/plaintiff is relative of Indrakumari Devi, who was owner of suit property situated at village Chirha, Tahsil Pandariya. Ceiling proceeding under M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 was initiated against holder of the lands namely, Smt. Indrakumari Devi. After providing opportunity of hearing, land in dispute which was shown in the name of original holder has been vested on the Government. Present appellant/plaintiff preferred appeal before the Additional Collector, Bilaspur. Same was dismissed. Then she filed suit for declaration. By filing written statement, the respondents have denied adverse allegation and have pleaded that property in dispute was Bhumiswami land of Indrakumari Devi against whom ceiling proceeding has been initiated and decided. Indrakumari Devi has submitted his return, in which she has not mentioned that she has gifted the property or otherwise disposed of the suit property to the present appellant. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, the 2nd Civil Judge Class-I, Bilaspur has dismissed the suit on the ground that suit was not maintainable in the light of Section 46 of the C.G. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (for short "the Act, 1960"). Same was challenged before the lower appellate Court and the lower appellate Court has also affirmed the finding of the trial Court by dismissing the appeal.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment & decree impugned, judgment & decree of the trial Court and records of the Courts below.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that as per subsection (2) of Section 11-A of the Act, 1960, civil suit was not barred and bar created under Section 46 of the Act, 1960 is subject to provisions of the Act, 1960, therefore, in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 11-A of the Act, 1960 suit which was pending in the year 1988 was barred and by dismissing suit and appeal both the Courts below have committed illegality.

6. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents opposed the appeal and argued that suit filed on behalf of the appellant was not the suit arising out of Section 11 of the Act, 1960, therefore, present suit was barred under Section 46 of the Act, 1960 and by dismissing suit and appeal both the Courts below have not committed any illegality.

7. As per pleading, documentary and oral evidence, proceeding under the Act, 1960 was initiated against original land holder Smt. Indrakumari Devi relating to suit properly, who was owner of the suit property. She has not mentioned in her return that she has gifted the property to the present appellant in the year 960 or prior to initiation of proceeding. Competent authority has declared the lands surplus and opportunity for choice was provided to her, thereafter the order was challenged before the Additional Collector, Bilaspur which was dismissed.

8. As per sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, 1960, competent authority was competent to enquire the matter summarily relating to title over the suit property which was subject-matter of ceiling proceeding; but no objection has been filed or raised by the appellant before such authority. Even original holder has not mentioned the