Back
2001 Supreme(HP) 110
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
K.C.SOOD
DHARAM SINGH - Appellant
Versus
PREM SINGH - Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 445 of 1993
Decided On : 06/07/2001
Mr. G.D. Verma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate, for the Appellants; Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate Vice Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate, for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 12, 16(b), 16(d), 18 to 24, 25(a) to 25(d), 27 to 29, 31, 41 to 44, 46 to 48, 49(a), 52 to 54, 58, 59 and 61.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain land disputes and the authority of the Land Reforms Officer to resolve disputes about the status of a person as a tenant under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1973.
Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Land Dispute - H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 - H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1973 - [JURISDICTION] - [Land Dispute] - [H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1973] - The court discussed the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit and controversy as raised under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 and 1973. It highlighted the authority of the Land Reforms Officer to resolve disputes about the status of a person as a tenant and emphasized that the Tehsildar of the Revenue Department had no jurisdiction to determine such questions under the H.P. Land Revenue Act. The court also noted that the order of the Tehsildar directing correction of the revenue entries was passed without jurisdiction and behind the back of the plaintiffs, and therefore could be ignored by the plaintiff-owners.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for declaration that they are the owners in possession of a land and sought a restraint on the defendants from interfering with their possession. The defendants resisted the suit, claiming to be non-occupancy tenants and owners of the land under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Court found the plaintiffs to be owners in possession of the land, and the defendants' plea regarding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not pressed before the trial Court. The appeal was dismissed by the learned District Judge, and the second appeal was also dismissed by the court.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and controversy as raised, and whether the defendants were tenants of the suit land under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and emphasized the authority of the Land Reforms Officer to resolve disputes about the status of a person as a tenant under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1973. It also noted that the Tehsildar of the Revenue Department had no jurisdiction to determine such questions under the H.P. Land Revenue Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Kuldip Chand Sood, J.—This second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge Hamirpur, dated 15th September, 1993.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal may be noticed thus. The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for declaration that they are the owners in possession of the land comprising Khasra No. 1427, measuring 16 kanals 1 marla situate in Tikka Sohari Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur, as per Jamabandi for the year 1977-78. A restraint was also sought on the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over this land.
3. The case of the plaintiff was that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of this land and defendants were unnecessarily threatening to take forcible possession of the land. They also threatened that they will get the entry in the revenue record corrected in connivance with the revenue staff. It was further stated that the nature of the land is "Banjar Quadim" and therefore, there is no question of any possession or tenancy of the defendants over this land.
4. The defendants resisted the suit on the ground that the suit land was in possession of the forefathers of the defendants as tenants and therefore, the Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to try this suit. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court. It was found that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land. The defendants did not press the plea before the trial Court that Civil Court has no jurisdiction. Dissatisfied, defendants filed an appeal before the learned District Judge. The appeal was dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree.
5. Still aggrieved, the defendants through their legal representatives are in second appeal.
6. I have heard Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Sr. Counsel asisted by Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate and Mr. Baldev Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the record with their help.
7. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law : Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and controversy as raised?
8. It was the case of the defendants that as the defendants were non occupancy tenants, therefore, they became the owners of the suit land after coming into force of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. It was also the case of the defendants that they were not shown as tenants of the suit land and therefore an application was moved before the Tahsildar, Barsar, who recorded the defendants as tenants. The learned District Judge found that Jamabandies for the year 1913-14 to 1977-78 records the suit land in possession of the plaintiff-owners. It was only on 1st December, 1981, that the Tahsildar, Barsar, made an order directing the correction in the entries in the revenue records (Ex. D-l) and the appellants, pursuant to this order, were recorded in possession of this land as tenants.
9. Learned District Judge after referring to the evidence of Shri C.R. Katwal, Tahsildar Barsar, who corrected the revenue entries, found that the revenue entries were corrected behind the back of the plaintiff-respondents on the basis of a spot inspection carried out by him on 15th October, 1981. Relying upon Smt. Rattani Devi and another v. Rajinder Pal and others, 1984 Sim. L.J. 63, learned District Judge held that Tehsildar has no jurisdiction to declare the status of the defendant-appellants as tenants under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1973.
10. Shri Verma vehemently urges that it was not for the Civil Court to decide whether the revenue entries have legally been corrected or not. The matter was decided by a competent authority and no appeal or revision was carried against it which has become final.
11. Mr. Verma refers to Azhar Hasan and others v. Distt. Judge, Saharanpur and others, (1998) 3 SCC 246, and submits that it is for the revenue authorities to consider who should be recorded in possession of the land and Civil Courts will have no jurisdiction to enter into this quest
