Point of Law: Partition - Bar of jurisdiction - When material on record is amply suggestive of non application of relevant statutory provisions by the statutory authorities, to lis concerned, inference whereof becomes aroused from breaches being visited principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. The plaintiffs instituted a Civil Suit bearing No. 52/S/1 of 2000/93 before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Kandaghat. In the afore civil suit, the plaintiff claimed the making of a declaratory decree, reliefs whereof become extracted hereinafter:-

“It is, therefore, prayed that a decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are four temples at four different places under four different Mohatmims and are four different entities having separate status, personalities and are four different juristic persons and the said plaintiffs have no concern with the personal property and ownership of the Mohatmims and are liable to declared entitled to four different units as such independently and revenue entries are liable to be corrected accordingly, and further mutations effect otherwise than the above said, the same are not binding upon the plaintiffs, the order of the authorities of Himachal Pradesh under H.P. Ceiling Act are illegal, inoperative, null and void and are beyond the purview of the provisions of the said Act and the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the said land comprised in Khata Nos. 1 to 3, Khatauni Nos. 2 to 7 all kits 78 measuring 1605-13 bighas at village Naog, Pargana Pashgoan, Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. per jamabandi for the year 1989-90 to the extent of four units with consequential relief of possession and injunction restraining the defendants from making any interference in the suit land, allotting the same to any other person or persons may be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.”

The learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) concerned, through its verdict made upon the afore civil suit on 15.12.2003, proceeded to decline the afore espoused decrees to the plaintiffs.

2. The aggrieved plaintiffs carried there-against, a Civil Appeal bearing No. 42FT/13 of 2005 before the learned First Appellate Court and the learned First Appellate Court, through its verdict made thereon, on 5.12.2005 rather allowed the plaintiffs' appeal, in the hereinafter extracted manner:-

“39. It is held that the plaintiffs are four separate legal entities. As on the appointed day, that is, on 24.1.1971 they were joint owners of land measuring 1593-05 bigha as detailed in the order of Collector dated 30.07.1976. The Collector is directed to pass fresh order under H.P. Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, treating each of the plaintiffs as a separate unit and to restor4e the possession of the remaining land, that is, the land that will remain after declaring surplus. Parties are left to bear their own costs.”

3. The State of Himachal Pradesh becomes aggrieved from the afore made verdict by the learned First Appellate Court upon Civil Appeal bearing No. 42FT/13 of 2005 and has strived to annul the afore verdict through its instituting the extant Regular Second Appeal before this Court.

4. When the appeal came up for hearing before this Court on 8.11.2006, this Court admitted the appeal on the hereinafter extracted substantial question of law:-

“Whether the finding of the first Appellate Court that the Civil Court has the jurisdiction is contrary to law?”

5. The learned Additional Additional Advocate has contended with much vigour before this Court, that with Section 18 of the Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:-

“18. Bar of jurisdiction:

(1) No civil court shall have jurisdiction to:

(a) entertain or proceed with a suit for specific performance of a contract for transfer of land which affects the right of the State Government to the surplus area under this Act.

(b) settle, decide or deal with any matter which is under this Act required to be settled, decide or dealt with by the Financial Commissioner, the Commissioner, the Collector.

(2) No order of the Financial Commis