Back
1997 Supreme(HP) 363
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
SURINDER SARUP
DUGLU RAM - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF H.P. - Respondent
R.S.A. No. 494 of 1990
Decided On : 10/13/1997
Mr K.D. Sood, Advocate with Mr B,N. Gupta, Advocate for the Appellants; Mr Ram Murti Bisht, Asstt. Advocate:General for Respondent No. 1, Mr Praneet Gupta, Advocate for Respondent 2.
A civil court cannot entertain a suit challenging an administrative order unless the statutory remedies provided for review or revision have been exhausted, except in cases where the impugned action is without jurisdiction or there is sufficient cause shown for not availing the statutory remedy.
Headnote:
LAND GRANT - NAUTOR SCHEME - H.P. GRANT OF NAUTOR LAND TO LANDLESS PERSONS SCHEME, 1975 - SECTION 11 - RESUMPTION OF GRANT - FAILURE TO BREAK LAND WITHIN TWO YEARS - NO TIME LIMIT FOR RESUMPTION - CIVIL COURT JURISDICTION - EXHAUSTION OF STATUTORY REMEDIES.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs claimed ownership and possession of land granted to their predecessor-in-interest under the Nautor Scheme. The grant was canceled by the Collector for failure to break the land within two years as per the scheme's conditions. Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of ownership and injunction against interference with their possession.
Finding of the Court:
The lower courts dismissed the suit, holding that the cancellation of the grant was valid and the suit was not maintainable without exhausting statutory remedies.
Issues: 1. Whether the cancellation of the nautor grant was illegal and without jurisdiction? 2. Whether the suit was maintainable without notice under Section 80, C.P.C.? 3. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to succeed to the suit land by way of succession under the Will executed by their predecessor-in-interest?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The cancellation of the grant was valid as it was made under para 11 of the H.P. Grant of Nautor Land to Landless Persons Scheme, 1975, which allowed resumption of the grant if the land was not broken within two years. 2. The suit was not maintainable without exhausting the statutory remedy of revision under the relevant rules, as the impugned order of the Collector was not without jurisdiction or there was no sufficient cause shown for not availing the statutory remedy.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the lower courts' decision to dismiss the suit.
SURINDER SARUP, J.—This second appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the two Courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellants. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court is that of Shri Surjit Singh, District Judge, Mandi, Kullu and Lauhal Spiti Districts, Camp at Kullu dated 22.10.1990 and that of the trial Court is of Shri V.K. Ahuja, Senior Sub-Judge, Kullu dated 22.6.1987.
2. The plaintiffs-appellants went to the Civil Court on the pleadings that the suit land measuring 3 Bighas 5 Biswas 0 Biswansis bearing Khasra No. 6117 situated in Phati Jana Kothi Naggar, Tehsil and District Kullu was in their ownership and possession regarding which they sought a declaration from the Civil Court. They had become owners by virtue of a Will dated 16.3.1982, which was executed in their favour by late Smt. Duadshi. By way of consequential relief, they prayed for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the State of H.P. and the defendants-respondents Hira Lal and Ram and other residents of the area from interfering with their possession over the suit land. According to the plaintiffs, the same had been granted to their predecessor-in-interest Smt. Duadshi under the Nautor Scheme by the Revenue Assistant as she was a landless lady. She made a Will in respect of the same in their favour and, therefore, on her death, they came into possession thereof. However, the Collector, Kullu, vide his order dated 16.8.1982 cancelled the grant in her favour. This order was challenged being illegal, void and without jurisdiction. After the said order had been passed, the State of H.P., the residents of the area i.e. defendants Hira Lai and Bed Ram and nine other persons, who were represented by Hira Lai and Bed Ram defendants in the suit in a representative capacity started interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land, hence the suit for declaration and protection of their rights.
3. In the written statement, it was objected that the suit was incompetent for want of notice under Section 80, C.P.C. and it was alleged that the grant made to the deceased lady was later on resumed as it was found that there stood a large number of trees on the suit land and also because she had failed to break the land within two years, though there was a specific condition in the Patta that if the land is not broken for cultivation within 2 years, the grant shall be resumed, It was also averred that the suit was not properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction. It was also denied that Duadshi made any Will in favour of the plaintiffs..
4. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land and the suit for injunction is competent? Opp
2. Whether the Patta Nautor in favour of plaintiffs in respect of the suit land has been illegally cancelled as alleged. Opp.
3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? Opp.
4. Whether the suit is competent without notice under Section 80, C.P.C? Opp.
5. Whether the suit is correctly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? Opp.
6. Whether Smt. Daudshi has executed a Will in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land? If so, its effect on the present suit? Opp.
7. In case Issue No. 6 is decided in favour of the plaintiffs, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to succeed to suit land by way of succession, as alleged? Opp.
8. Relief."
5. The finding under Issue No. 1 was that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land, and therefore, the suit for injunction is competent. Under Issue No. 2, it was found that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner cannot be said to be illegal or without jurisdiction and as such it cannot be said that the nautor was illegally cancelled. Issue No. 3 was struck off at the trial and under Issue No. 4, the finding was that the application under Section 80(2), C.P.C. was filed along w
