Back
2014 Supreme(HP) 957
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
Niaz Bibi - Appellant/Plaintiff
Versus
Satpal Singh and others - Respondents/Defendants
R.S.A. No. 49 of 2001
Decided on: 05.08.2014
For the Appellant :Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Charu Gupta, Advocate for respondents No. 1(a) to 1(c).
Mr. G.D.Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. B. C.Verma, Advocate, for respondents No. 2(a) to 2(c) and 3(d)
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the H.P. Land Revenue Act, especially Section 171, provides a complete mechanism for partitioning land and excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in such matters.
Headnote:
Civil Court Jurisdiction - H.P. Land Revenue Act - [DECLARATION OF LAND OWNERSHIP] - [H.P. Land Revenue Act, Section 171] - The court discussed the provisions of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, especially Section 171, which excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in matters within the jurisdiction of Revenue Officers. The court emphasized that the Act provides a complete mechanism for partitioning land and bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in such matters. The judgment highlighted that the plaintiff's suit was not maintainable before the Civil Court due to the bar imposed by Section 171 of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of land ownership and permanent injunction, alleging that a partition order behind her back caused a deficiency of land. The suit was contested by the defendants, who claimed that the plaintiff was party to the partition proceedings and had the opportunity to appeal or revise the order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff's suit was not maintainable before the Civil Court due to the bar imposed by Section 171 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act. The court emphasized that the Act provides a complete mechanism for partitioning land and excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in such matters.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the plaintiff's suit before the Civil Court, the jurisdiction of the revenue court, and the validity of the partition proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff's suit was not maintainable before the Civil Court due to the bar imposed by Section 171 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, which provides a complete mechanism for partitioning land and excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in such matters.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the plaintiff's case and leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)
The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 11.1.2001 passed by learned Additional District Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamshala (Camp at Una), H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 76/94 whereby he reversed the judgment and decree dated 11.4.1994 passed by learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Court No.II, Amb, District Una, H.P. in Case No. 821 of 1989.
2. The facts, in brief, may be noticed. The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the land measuring 21 Kanal 15 marlas bearing Khewat No. 450 min, Khatauni No. 638, Khasra Nos. 4594/1192, 4596/1193, 1194, 1277, 1278, 1279 and 1280 as entered in the copy of jamabandi for the year 1980-81 situated in Village Amb, Tehsil Amb, District Una (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) is owned and possessed by the plaintiff as Hissadar owner being the vendee from the defendants No.1 and 2 and order dated 17.12.1988 partitioning the suit land behind the back of the plaintiff and subsequent mutation on its basis is wrong, baseless as against the right of the plaintiff and for issuance of permanent injunction as a consequential relief restraining the defendants No. 1 to 3 from interfering in any manner in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. It is further alleged in the plaint that the suit land was jointly owned and possessed by her and the defendants No. 1 and 2 to the extent of half share and defendant No.3 is owner half share respectively. In fact defendant No.1 and 2, vide registered sale deed dated 12.12.1972 sold the suit land as Hissedar owners to the plaintiff and Smt. Niaz Bibi wife of Badar Deen and Sardaran Bibi wife of Jamal Deen for a consideration of Rs. 40,000/-. Later on Niaz Bibi and Sardaran Bibi sold their share in the above land vide two registered sale deeds dated 20.1.1977 in favour of the plaintiff. Lateron defendant No.3 in collusion with the defendants No. 1 and 2 with a view to harm the legal rights of the plaintiff filed a petition for partition of the suit land before the A.C.1st Grade, Amb wherein the plaintiff was not impleaded as a party nor the plaintiff has knowledge of such partition proceedings. The defendants at the back of the plaintiff procured an order of partition of land in file No.1/88 whereby the land measuring 4 Kanals 10 marlas, out of the suit land was wrongly taken out and allotted to defendant No.3, thus causing deficiency of 4 Kanals 10 marlas to the plaintiff. As a result of aforesaid partition, order which has caused deficiency of 4 Kanals 10 Marlas, to the plaintiff the same is null and void and is not binding upon the plaintiff.
3. The suit was contested by the defendants No. 1 and 4 by filing written statement wherein preliminary objections regarding maintainability, estoppel and cause of action were taken. On merits, it was alleged by the defendants that previously land measuring 21 Kanals 15 Marlas was jointly owned and possessed by the defendants No. 1 and 2 alongwith other co-sharers and the plaintiff became co-sharers/owner on the basis of the aforesaid sale deeds. It was further averred in the written statement that the plaintiff was party in the partition proceeding and the plaintiff had also appeared before the Revenue Officer at the time of conducting partition proceedings. If at all the plaintiff was aggrieved from the order of the Revenue Officer, she could have filed an appeal or revision before the competent authorities against such order. The defendant No.2 filed separate written statement and defendants No. 3, 9, 11 and 12 also filed separate written statement. They all have taken the similar stand as that of defendants No. 1 and 4.
4. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statements filed by the defendants and re-affirmed and reiterated the averments made in the plaint and controverted the assertions of the defendants made in their written statements.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learne
