SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Ori) 470

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
D. Dash, J.
Abdul Ghani Ansari - Appellant
Versus
Biswanath Kalo (dead) & Ors. - Respondents
RSA No. 13 of 2012
Decided On : 23-04-2021

Advocates Appeared:
M/s. U.K.Samal, C.D.Sahoo, S.P.Patra and S. Naik, Advocates, for the Appellant; M/s. B.Sahoo, B.Mohanty, P.K.Patel, A.Tripathy, Advocates, for the Appellant; Mr. Byomokesh Sahoo, Advocate, Addl. Standing Counsel, for the Respondent.

Exclusion of Civil Court's jurisdiction by special statute and the powers of the statutory tribunal were central to the Court's decision.

Headnote:

Code of Civil Procedure - Suit for declaration of right, title and interest over land - Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property ( By Scheduled Tribes) Regulations, 1956 - Regulations 2 of 1956 - Suit barred by Regulation 7-E - Court's analysis of jurisdiction of Civil Court, statutory tribunal's powers, and exclusion of Civil Court's jurisdiction by special statute - Appeal dismissed

Fact of the Case:

The Plaintiff filed a Suit for declaration of right, title and interest over a land, which was originally owned by Jayadev Kalo and later sold to the Plaintiff. The Defendant initiated a proceeding under Regulations 2 of 1956 to evict the Plaintiff and restore possession to the successors-in-interest of Jayadev Kalo. The Plaintiff's attempts to challenge the orders in various forums were unsuccessful, leading to the filing of the Suit.

Finding of the Court:

The Trial Court and First Appellate Court held that the Suit was barred by Regulation 7-E of Regulations 2 of 1956, which excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide matters already adjudicated by the Competent Authority under the Regulations. The Court also analyzed the exclusion of Civil Court's jurisdiction by special statute and the powers of the statutory tribunal, concluding that the Suit cannot be maintained.

Issues: Jurisdiction of Civil Court, right, title and interest of Plaintiff, exclusion of Civil Court's jurisdiction by special statute

Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was based on the interpretation of Regulation 7-E of Regulations 2 of 1956, the exclusion of Civil Court's jurisdiction by special statute, and the powers of the statutory tribunal. The Court emphasized that the Civil Court cannot sit to examine the legality and propriety of orders made by the statutory tribunal, unless the orders are unfair, arbitrary, or capricious.

Final Decision: The Appeal was dismissed, and no order as to cost was passed.

JUDGMENT

D.Dash, J. - The Appellant, by filing this Appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, the Code), has assailed the judgment dated 20.08.2011 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional District Judge, Sundargarh in R.F.A. No.13/566 of 2009-11. By the same, the judgment and decree dated 06.03.2009 and 19.03.2009 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Sundargarh, in C.S. No.64 of 2006 have been confirmed.

This Appellant, as the Plaintiff, had filed the Suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land and confirmation of possession with further prayer to declare the entire proceeding and the decision rendered in Misc. Case No.3 of 1998 by the Officer on Special Duty (Land Reforms), Sundargar arraigned as Defendant No.3 as also the Appeal proceeding and the decisions rendered by the Additional District Magistrate, Sundargarh in R.A. No.49 of 2002.

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity as also to avoid confusion; the parties hereinafter have been referred to in the same rank as assigned to them in the original proceeding before the Trial Court. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and the learned counsel for the Respondents at length. The judgments of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have been carefully gone through.

3. The Plaintiffs case is that the suit land originally belonged to one Jayadev Kalo, the predecessor-in-interest of Defendant Nos.1 and 2. It is his case that said Jayadev Kalo, during his life time, had sold the land to two persons, namely, Harun Nag and Abdul Gony Ansari on 05.03.1955. Said Harun Nag had purchased the suit land measuring Ac.0.06 decimals from Jayadev Kalo under unregistered plain paper document for a consideration of Rs.140/-. It is stated that from the date of said purchase, Harun Nag becoming the owner possessed the land in question. Later Harun Nag sold the suit land to the Plaintiff by executing a registered sale deed on 17.05.1961 and accordingly, the Plaintiff possessed the suit land being owner thereof. When the matter stood thus, the Defendant No.3 initiated a proceeding under Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property ( By Scheduled Tribes) Regulations, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Regulations 2 of 1956') vide Misc. Case No.3 of 1998 against the Plaintiff and his vendor Harun Nag. The auction was to evict from the suit land and restore the possession of eth said land to the successor-in-interest of Jayadev Kalo. The proceeding finally ended with an order of eviction of the Plaintiff and his vendor Harun Nag followed by an order of restoration of possession of the suit land in favour of the Defendant Nos.1 and 2. The order being passed on 30.11.2002, the Plaintiff carried an Appeal as provided under Regulations 2 of 1956 to the Appellate Authority, i.e, Defendant No.4. The Appeal being numbered as R.A. No.49 of 2002, had finally came to be dismissed. The order passed by the Defendant No.3 stood confirmed. The Plaintiff being aggrieved by the said orders, challenged those by carrying writ petitions before this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.8994 and 8995 of 2005. Those also stood dismissed. The Plaintiff thereafter filed Writ Appeal No.71 of 2005, which was also dismissed on merit by a Division Bench of this court on 19.12.2005. Thus, having failed in all attempts, the Suit was instituted with the reliefs as already stated.

The Defendant Nos.1 and 2 in whose favour the orders had been passed by Defendant Nos.3 and 4, contested the Suit by filing their written statement and so also the Authorities acting under the Regulations 2 of 1956, i.e, Defendant Nos.3 and 4 have also filed their written note of submission.

The case of the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 is that they are members of Scheduled Tribes community residing in the Schedule Districts. Jayadev Kalo was there predecessor-in-interest. They denied the case of the Plaintiff that Jayadev Kalo had ever sold the suit land to Harun Nag, who is a memb

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top