VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. (ORAL)

RFA No. 621/2003

1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 17.5.2003 dismissing the suit for declaration and injunction filed by the appellants/ plaintiffs. The impugned judgment holds that the suit ought to have been filed before the Revenue Courts under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and not before the Civil Court whose jurisdiction was barred as per Section 185 of the Act.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellants/plaintiffs claimed to have purchased the subject agricultural land by means of registered sale deeds and got themselves recorded as bhumidars/owners of the land. The land which is the subject matter of the dispute is as under:-

“i. Shri Ashok Kumar is the Bhumidar of agricultural land measuring 6 Bighas and 18 biswas, mustail no.73, killa no.9(2-2), 12 (4-16), situated in village Nizampur, Rasidpur, Tehsil & District Delhi.

ii. Shri Davender Kumar is the Bhumidar of agricultural land measuring 07 bighas, 13 biswas, bearing Khasra no.69/7, min (4-04) & 69/14 min (3-09) situated in village Nizampur, Delhi.

iii. Shri Amit Ratawal is the Bhumidar of land measuring 12 bighas 17 biswas bearing Khasra no.69/6 (4-08), 69/7(0-4), 69/14 min. (0-14), 69/15 min (1-16), 70/10/2 (2-15), 70/11/1 (3-00), in village Nizampur, Delhi and, iv. Shri Sumit Ratawal is the Bhumidar of land measuring 12 bighas 17 biswas, bearing Khasra No.69/14, min (0-13), 69/15 min. (3-00), 69/16 (4-12), 69/17 (4-08) and 69/26 (0-04) in the revenue estate of Nizampur, Delhi.” On 25.2.2001, when plaintiff No.2 visited the suit land, he found some strangers and on enquiry they told him that they had been offered this land for sale by defendant No.2-Sh. Shiv Raj Singh Verma. The strangers also informed that they have been shown mutation of the said land in favour of defendant No.2. The plaintiffs/appellants thereafter made enquiries and it transpired that the defendant No.1-Smt. Munni Devi forged a General Power of Attorney of the plaintiffs which did not bear the signatures of the plaintiffs, and on the basis of this forged General Power of Attorney she had executed a sale deed of the subject land in favour of the defendant No.2. The defendant No.2 has thereafter sold the land to the wife of defendant No.4 i.e. defendant No.3 by means of a registered sale deed dated 28.2.2001. The defendant No.4 was the ACP of the area who was stated to have been in collusion with the defendants.

3. Legal heirs of defendant No. 1 (defendant No.1 being deceased) did not appear and were proceeded exparte. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 contested the suit and inter alia pleaded that the suit was barred under Section 185 of the Act and the Civil Courts had no jurisdiction to grant the reliefs as prayed for.

4. The trial Court has held that the Civil Courts had no jurisdiction to decide the suit by observing as under:-

“16. The short question arises for consideration-Whether Civil Courts have jurisdiction to grant the relief prayed for? Before proceed further it has become essential to examine the relevant provision of Delhi Land Reforms Act. Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act is reproduced as under:-

“185. COGNIZANCE OF SUITS, ETC. UNDER THIS ACT— (I) Except as provided by or under this Act no Court other than a Court mentioned in Column 7 of Schedule I shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, taken cognizance of any suit, application, or proceedings mentioned in column 3 thereof.

(2) Except as hereinafter provided no appeal shall lie from an order passed under any of the proceedings mentioned in Column 3 of the Schedule aforesaid.

(3) An appeal shall lie from the final order passed by a Court mentioned in column 7 in the proceedings mentioned in column 3 to the Court or authority mentioned in column 8 thereof.

(4) A second appeal shal