Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1754
2025: JHHC: 22914
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Samrendra Patra, Son Of Late Satya Kinker Patra - Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar, Now Jharkhand - Respondent
S.A. No. 196 of 2004
Decided on : 08-08-2025
Advocate Appeared :
For the Appellant : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate Ms. Shivani Jaluka, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
For the Appellant :Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate Ms. Shivani Jaluka, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
The civil court can assert jurisdiction over property rights when governmental actions lack proper process and notice, as illustrated in the context of the Bihar Land Reforms Act.
Headnote:(A) Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 - Sections 43 and 5(1)(iii) - Jurisdiction of civil courts concerning matters under the Ceiling Act - Whether the suit is maintainable despite Section 43’s prohibition - Courts found that prior proceedings lacked proper notice to plaintiff, ruling the appeal allowed due to violation of natural justice - The plaintiff claimed title over property through registered gift deed dated 14.03.1970. (Paras 3-39)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 80 - Requirement of prior notice to the State - Exemption permitted in cases of emergent circumstances - Civil courts’ authority against jurisdictional errors by administrative bodies discussed. (Paras 80)
(C) Substantial questions of law were framed regarding the maintainability of the suit considering statutory provisions. (Paras 6-36)
(D) Findings: It was concluded that failure to hold an enquiry under the Ceiling Act rendered prior decisions against the appellant void for lack of jurisdiction, hence ruling in favor of the appellant. (Paras 36-39) (E)
Result: Appeal allowed, plaintiff entitled to maintain suit over the land.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of a title suit for land declaration. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. maintainability of the suit based on substantive legal questions. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. arguments regarding the gift deed and its validity. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. counterarguments regarding the maintainability of the suit. (Para 14 , 15 , 19) |
| 5. court’s findings on jurisdiction and procedural validity. (Para 17 , 22 , 26) |
| 6. impact of jurisdictional issues on suit validity. (Para 29 , 30 , 36) |
| 7. final decree in favor of the appellant. (Para 38 , 39) |
JUDGMENT :
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 19.01.2004 (decree dated 27.01.2004) passed by the learned District Judge, Hazaribagh in Title Appeal No. 16 of 1999 whereby the learned District Judge dismissed the Title Appeal and affirmed the judgment dated 04.02.1999 (decree dated 24.02.1999) passed by the learned Additional Munsif, Hazaribagh in Title Suit No. 37 of 1989.
3. The title suit was filed for declaration of title of the plaintiff over the lands described in Schedule A of the plaint and also for declaration that, the order dated 15.09.1987 passed by the Additional Collector (Ceiling), Hazaribagh in Land Ceiling Case No. 48/1973 and the notification of surplus lands under Memo No. 567 dated 03.02.1989 published in the District Gazette, Hazaribag dated 03.02.1989 concerning the suit land, is not binding upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff further prayed for injunction restraining defendant No. 1 and 2 from giving effect to the order dated 15.09.1987 passed in Land Ceiling Case No. 48/1973 and published in the District Gazette dated 03.02.1989.
4. The description of the suit property mentioned in Schedule-A is as under: -
Village – Marhand (Dadigarha), Thana No. 116, Thana Katkamsandi (Hazaribagh), District Hazaribagh
| Khata No. | Plot No. | Area |
| 90 | 79 | 16.00 acres |
| 154 | 1.19 acres | |
| 87 | 1.88 acres | |
| 192 | 2.06 acres | |
| 180 | 0.61 acres | |
| 181 | 0.16 acres | |
| 282 | 2.00 acres | |
| Total | 23.90 acres |
Arguments of the appellant
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial court framed as many as 9 issues for consideration and the learned 1st appellate court has framed as many as 8 issues. He has submitted that the point of maintainability of the suit was contested referring to Section 43 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the aforesaid “Act of 1961”]. However, since the plaintiff had also claimed title over the property, issue to that effect was also framed. He has submitted that the learned trial court decided the title against the appellant-plaintiff, but could not grant any relief to the appellant on the ground that the suit was barred under Section 43 of the aforesaid Act of 1961. So far as the learned 1st appellate court is concerned, the title was declared in favour of the plaintiff. However, again the 1st appellate court could not grant relief by referring to Section 43 (2) of the aforesaid Act of 1961. Consequently, in spite of declaration of title in favour of the appellant, the appellant has not been granted any relief.
6. With this background, the learned counsel has referred to substantial question of law as framed by this Court vide order dated 07.04.2025 which are as follows: -
(i) Whether in the absence of jurisdiction, the trial court and the appellate court should have returned the plaint for raising the grievance before appropriate forum or not?
(ii) Whether in spite of giving finding that the suit is not maintainable for want of jurisdiction and still proceed with the trial and appeal and thus, making the petitioner/ appellant remedy-less, is permissible in law or not?
(iii) Whether the suit is maintainable in spite of prohibition under Section 43 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus land) Act, 1961 or not?
7. The learned counsel has submitted that if the suit is held to be maintainable in spite of
