Back
1996 Supreme(Gau) 196
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
H.K.Kumar Singh, J.
Dhela Boro -Appellant
Versus
Jagannath Das and Ors. -Respondent
Second Appeal No. 170 of 1987
Decided On : 27-08-1996
P.K.Barua, M.Z.Ahmed, D.K.Talukdar, A.K.Das Gupta
The jurisdiction of civil courts is not ousted by revenue law, and civil courts can declare the title of a plaintiff based on an Annual Patta canceled by the Revenue Board after the suit was filed.
Headnote:
ANNUAL LEASE PATTA - CANCELLATION - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - TRIBAL BELT - ASSAM LAND AND REVENUE REGULATION, 1886 - CHAPTER X - SECTIONS 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 171 - RULES UNDER THE LAND AND REVENUE REGULATION (ASSAM) - CHAPTER IX - EFFECT OF SUBSEQUENT EVENTS ON RELIEF - RIGHT TO RELIEF DETERMINED AS ON DATE OF SUIT - COURT'S JURISDICTION NOT OUSTED BY REVENUE LAW - CIVIL COURT CAN DECLARE TITLE OF PLAINTIFF BASED ON ANNUAL PATTA CANCELED BY REVENUE BOARD AFTER SUIT FILED.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction and other reliefs, claiming title to the suit land based on an Annual Lease Patta. The defendants contested the suit, asserting adverse possession and that the land fell within the Tribal Belt, where the Revenue Authority wrongly issued the patta. The trial court and the first appellate court decreed the suit, upholding the plaintiff's title and finding the defendants to be trespassers.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the cancellation of the Annual Lease Patta by the Revenue Board extinguished the plaintiff's right over the land, and the civil court had no jurisdiction to declare any civil right of the plaintiff contrary to the decision of the Revenue Court. The court found that the plaintiff had no subsisting right over the suit land at the time of the decree, and thus no title on the basis of the canceled patta.
Issues: 1. Whether the civil court can decree a suit based on an Annual Patta canceled by the Revenue Board before the impugned judgments and decrees were passed? 2. Whether the civil court can declare the plaintiff's title in the absence of an existing patta and in view of the provisions of Chapter X of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation? 3. Whether the impugned judgments and decrees are without jurisdiction in view of the Revenue Board's order canceling the patta, which cannot be questioned in a civil court under section 167 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The right to relief is determined as on the date a suitor institutes the legal proceeding. Subsequent developments cannot defeat the right if the facts on the date of filing the suit entitled the plaintiff to a decree. 2. Courts can consider subsequent events and mould the relief in appropriate cases, even to the extent of declaring a lawful decree unexecutable due to subsequent happenings. 3. The exclusion of the jurisdiction of civil courts is not to be readily inferred but must be explicitly expressed or clearly implied. 4. Chapter X of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, provides special provisions for the protection of backward classes, including provisions for disposal of land, rights of settlement holders, ejectment, and eviction. 5. Section 167 of the Regulation excludes the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters covered by Chapter X. 6. The cancellation of the Annual Lease Patta by the Revenue Board extinguished the plaintiff's right over the land, and the civil court had no jurisdiction to declare any civil right of the plaintiff contrary to the decision of the Revenue Court.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decrees of the courts below, and dismissed the suit. Each party was directed to bear its own costs.
2. The case of the plaintiffs (respondent here) in brief, was that the suit land which is a paddy land measuring 6 bighas 4 kathas 11 lecass covered by Dag No. 228 (old) 313 (new) of Annual Patta No. 11 of Village Banipara (Plaint Schedule Ka) was reclaimed by the plaintiff No. 1 and the husband of the defendant No. 2 and made it fit for cultivation. Annual Patta was also issued in their names. In the month of Shrawana 1971 BS the defendants dispossessed the plaintiffs. Hence the suit for eviction and for other reliefs. The defendants (appellants here) contested the suit asserting that the defendant No. 1 was possessing the land for more than 22 years thereby perfectly his right by adverse possession and it was also stated that the suit land fell within the Tribal Belt and the Revenue Authority wrongly issued the patta.
3. The trial Court decreed the suit and the first appellate Court also maintained the decree of the trial Court. Both the Courts found the title of the plaintiff over the suit land being the Annual Lease Patta holder and that the defendant were trespassers over the suit land. The suit was filed on 27.9.73 and was decreed by the trial Court on 8.3.82. During the pendency of the appeal in the first appellate Court, the defendants filed a certified copy of the order dated 25.7.78 passed by the Assam Board of Revenue in Case Na.46 RS/78 by which the Annual Lease Patta standing in the name of the plaintiff was cancelled. The first appellate Court also upheld the title of the plaintiff and also further held that the cancellation of Annual Lease Patta did not affect the right of the plaintiff as the right to get the relief was to be determined as was available to the plaintiff on the date of the institution of the suit.
4. The substantial question of law formulated at the time of admission of this appeal are as follows :
(1) Whether the learned Courts below are justified in decreeing the suit based on title by virtue of an Annual Patta which was cancelled by the Assam Board of Revenue long before the impugned judgments and decrees were passed ?
(2) Whether the learned Courts are justified in declaring the title of the plaintiff in issue No.3 in view of the failure of the plaintiff to prove in Court an existing patta and in view of the provisions of Chapter X of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation? ; -
(3) Whether the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below are without jurisdiction in view of the judgment and order dated 25.7.78 passed by the Assam Board of Revenue in Case No.46 RA/78 canceling the patta which cannot be questioned in a civil Court under section 167 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation ?
(4) Any other ground which the appellant can take at the time of hearing.
5. Both the Courts below held that even if the suit land fell within the Tribal Belt and (he provision of Chapter X of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation was in force in-the area, still the plaintiff No. 1 was a resident of Harishingha and BaniparaGabn of Kalaigaon Tribal Belt and as such he could hold the land as the holder of the Annual Lease Patta and cancellation of the patta by the Revenue Board happened after filing of the suit. Thus, the crucial point will be whether the remedy available on plaintiff at the time of the suit will be taken away or stultified by this subsequent happening. Another angle will be whether the civil Courts jurisdiction is affected or ousted by the provision of the Revenue law.
6. Regarding the affect of the happenings or events, subsequent to the filing of the suit, the learned counsel for both the sides have also relied upon decis
