Back
High Court Of Delhi
KACHERU - Appellant
Versus
RISAL SINGH - Respondent
Regular Second Appeal 264 of 1964
Decided On : 04/21/1970
DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS - SECTION 18 (2) - OUSTER OF JURISDICTION - CONFLICT OF RIGHTS - CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS - CHALLENGE TO VIRES - JURISDICTIONAL FACT.
Fact of the Case:
Tenants evicted from land after July 1, 1950, on grounds other than arrears of rent, were entitled to regain possession under Section 18(2) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. The plaintiffs, who were proprietors of land, filed suits challenging the orders passed by the Revenue Assistant and the Chief Commissioner under Section 18(2), alleging that the orders were ultra vires, illegal, and a nullity. The plaintiffs also claimed that they were not liable to be dispossessed as they had been granted Bhumindari rights under the Act and could only be evicted in accordance with Section 76 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the civil courts did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suits filed by the plaintiffs. The Court found that the Delhi Land Reforms Act created a hierarchy of courts to deal with matters relating to the rights and liabilities created by the Act, and that the jurisdiction of civil courts was ousted by implication. The Court also held that the challenge to the vires of Section 18(2) was not a jurisdictional fact that would confer jurisdiction on the civil courts.
Issues: 1. Whether the civil courts had jurisdiction to entertain the suits filed by the plaintiffs. 2. Whether Section 18(2) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act was ultra vires.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The jurisdiction of civil courts is ousted by implication when a statute creates a special tribunal to determine questions relating to rights or liabilities created by the statute. 2. A challenge to the vires of a statute or its provision is not a jurisdictional fact that would confer jurisdiction on a civil court to try the suit.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court were set aside, and the plaintiffs' suits were dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS judgment will dispose of two regular second appeals Nos. 263-D and 264-D of 1964 inasmuch as the question of law involved in both the cases is the same. Originally, both these appeals had come up for hearing before I. D. Dua, J, who by his order dated April 26, 1967 REFERRED TO the matter to a larger Bench in view of the importance of the question involved.
( 2 ) THE facts in both the appeals are similar although the parties and the land in dispute are different. The plaintiffs-respondents were the proprietors of land in Village Hulabi Kalan, Delhi. The defendants-appellants were tenants of some of the plots of land of which the respondents were the owners. The appellants were evicted from the land in their possession sometime after July I, 1950 on ground other than for non-payment of rent. Thereafter there was consolidation of holdings in this village and the respondents were allotted plots of land other than those which were held by them prior to consolidation. The new holdings of the respondents also included plots of land in lieu of plots which were earlier under the tenancy of the appellants. After the enforcement of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 the appellants initiated two separate proceedings for restoration of the possession of land alleging that they had been dispossessed and evicted after July 1, 1950 and were, therefore, entitled to be put back in possession as they had been evicted for grounds other than for nonpayment of rent in view of the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 18 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. These applications were heard by the Court of the Additional Revenue Assistant, Delhi, who by means of an order dated 19-8-1958 directed the appellants in one matter to be put back in possession of the entire land and in the other the entire land except khasra No. 1135/154. The respondents appealed against the orders in both the applications but in one of the matters in which khasra No. 1135/154 was not given to the applicants in that case they also filed a crossappeal. The appellate Court dismissed the appeals of the present respondents and accepted the cross-objections in respect of Khasra No. 1135/154. The result was that the applicants in both the proceedings succeeded in getting orders for restoration of possession under sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Delhi Land Re- forms Act. Thereafter the present respondents filed their respective suits bearing Nos. 408 and 409 of 1962. In these suits the respondents raised various pleas and, infer alia, urged that the orders passed by the Revenue Assistant and the Chief Commissioner were without jurisdiction, ultra vires illegal and a nullity on the following grounds :-
" (A) The provisions of section 18 (2) of Delhi Land Reforms Act are ultra vires, being ex-proprietory and discriminating based on no rational basis.
(B) The defendant was merely a tenant at will and not a non occupancy tenant as contemplated by section 18 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act.
(C) The relief in application made on 12-2-1955 by defendant related to old Khasra Numbers only which had ceased to exist and not to post consolidation kilas.
(D) The defendant was not evicted under any decree or order from khasra No. 1135/154 but surrendered possession himself much after eviction from other land by the Tehsildar effected on 8-6-1951.
(E) The eviction other than under decree or order do not fall u/s 13 (2) of Delhi Land Reforms Act and the defendant was in arrears of rent also.
(F) The consolidation officer had no authority in this case to propose any kilas in lieu of old khasra no. specially when he had become functus officio nor a tenant at will is entitled to any substitute tenancy holding in consolidation nor defendant was tenant just before consolidation. "
( 3 ) THE respondents had also contended in these suits that they were not liable to be dispossessed inasmuch as they had been granted Bhumindari rights under the Delhi Land Reforms Act and could be ev
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
