Civil Courts can intervene when statutory provisions are not followed by revenue authorities, emphasizing the necessity of procedural compliance for valid administrative orders.

JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

On 28.03 2025, this court passed the following orders:-

“A perusal of the judgment and decree passed by both the learned Courts below would go to indicate that order passed by the Financial Commissioner on 29.08.1991 and the order subsequently passed by the Collector, Theog on 30.09.1992 have been set-aside only on the ground of procedural irregularity in passing of such order and it is for this precisely that vestment of land in question measuring 858.05 bighas in favour of the State has been set-aside and the appellants/defendants have been restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the land in question except in Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes accordance with law. The suit was instituted by the plaintiffs in the year 1992 and decreed after a decade in the year 2002 and since then the litigation is continuing.

I have heard the matter for considerable time. I find that it was only on account of procedural irregularity committed by the revenue authorities that led to the decree. The only question being argued by learned Additional Advocate General is that learned Civil Courts do not have the jurisdiction and strong reliance is placed on Section 18 of the Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, which reads as under:-

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 rights of the State Government to the surplus area under this Act; or

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

(2) No order of the Financial Commissioner, the Commissioner or the Collector made under or in pursuance of this Act, shall be called in question in any court.”

This argument of the learned Additional Advocate General only means that even as per the State, it is for the revenue authorities to decide this case. This is precisely what in fact has been done in the instant case by both the learned courts below. In case the State would have proceeded in accordance with law, it would been long time back that the issue raised in the present lis would have been long settled. Confronted with this, learned Additional General prays for and is granted two weeks’ time to obtain instructions.”

2. Today, learned Additional Advocate General has stated that he is under instructions to argue the matter.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material available on record.

4. The parties shall be referred to as the “plaintiffs” and “defendants”.

5. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/respondents are the legal heirs of one Shri Paras Ram, S/o late Shri Surat Ram. Deceased Kubja, plaintiff No.12 was also legal heir of Smt. Marchi wife of Paras Ram. Plaintiff No. 3, 6, 7 and 13 to 16 are also legal heirs of the deceased Smt. Abloo, another wife of Sh. Paras Ram. Smt. Khakhoo was the mother of Paras Ram. Smt. Khakhoo, Shri Paras Ram and plaintiff No. 1 to 9, Smt. Marchi and Smt. Abloo were owner in possession of the land as described in the orders of the lower Courts.

6. According to the plaintiffs, the aforesaid owners cultivated and possessed the land separately and they did not constitute joint family on the appointed date i.e. on 24/01/1971. When Himachal Pradesh Ceiling of land Holdings Act, 1972 (for short, “the Act”) came into operation, Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Theog exercising the powers of the Collector under the Act, issued notice to Smt. Khakhoo to file return. Thereafter, Smt. Khakhoo filed the return before the Collector, Theog, but without knowledge and the participation of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs subsequently came to know that the Collector, Theog vide its order dated 27/01/1975 closed the proceedings as no surplus area was found under th