Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Prem Chand Jain, S.P.Goyal, S.S.Kang, G.C.Mittal and I.S.Tiwana JJ.
State Of Haryana
Versus
Vinod Kumar
Second Appeal No. 2930 of 1980,
Decided On : OCTOBER 14, 1985
SURPLUS AREA DETERMINATION - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - VOID ORDER - REMEDY - PUNJAB SECURITY OF LAND TENURES ACT, 1956 - SECTION 25 - HARYANA CEILING ON LAND HOLDINGS ACT, 1972 - SECTION 26: 1. An order passed by a Collector of Surplus Area without affording the concerned landowner an opportunity of being heard, as envisaged by Rule 6 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956, is a nullity and a suit to challenge the validity of such an order is maintainable in view of the clear language of Section 25 of the Punjab Act excluding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. 2. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try suits against orders passed by a Tribunal of Special Jurisdiction in violation of the provisions of the statute or principles of natural justice is upheld even though the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to question the legality or validity of the orders of the Tribunal is expressly barred by the statute. 3. The existence of an alternative or concurrent remedy under the Act does not bar the remedy of a suit if it is otherwise available to the aggrieved party.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents filed a suit for a declaration that the order of the Collector declaring 87.14 acres as surplus area and 138.31 acres as tenant's permissible area in the hands of their father, Gobind Parshad, was void and inoperative and for a permanent injunction restraining the appellants from utilizing the said land under the provisions of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. The material allegations made in the plaint were that the respondents and their father Govind Parshad constituted a joint Hindu family and owned 500 acres of agricultural land situate at village Fatehpuria, district Sirsa prior to April 15, 1953, the date on which the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (hereinafter called the Punjab Act) was enforced.
Finding of the Court:
1. The impugned order of the Collector was a nullity as it was passed without affording the respondents an opportunity of being heard, in violation of Rule 6 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956. 2. The suit filed by the respondents challenging the validity of the impugned order was maintainable despite the provisions of Section 25 of the Punjab Act excluding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, as the order was a nullity. 3. The existence of an alternative or concurrent remedy under the Punjab Act did not bar the remedy of a suit, as the respondents had the right to choose either remedy.
Issues: 1. Whether an order passed by a Collector of Surplus Area without affording the concerned landowner an opportunity of being heard is a nullity? 2. Whether a suit to challenge the validity of such an order is maintainable in view of the clear language of Section 25 of the Punjab Act excluding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court? 3. Whether the existence of an alternative or concurrent remedy under the Punjab Act bars the remedy of a suit?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try suits against orders passed by a Tribunal of Special Jurisdiction in violation of the provisions of the statute or principles of natural justice is upheld even though the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to question the legality or validity of the orders of the Tribunal is expressly barred by the statute. 2. The exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is not to be readily inferred but that such exclusion must either be explicitly expressed or clearly implied. 3. Even if jurisdiction is so excluded, the Civil Courts have jurisdiction to examine into cases where the provisions of the Act have not been complied with, or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure.
Final Decision: The suit filed by the respondents challenging the validity of the impugned order was maintainable despite the provisions of Section 25 of the Punjab Act excluding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, as the order was a nullity. The existence of an alternative or concurrent remedy under the Punjab Act did not bar the remedy of a suit, as the respondents had the right to choose either remedy.
S.P.GOYAL, J.
1. The respondents filed this suit for a declaration that the order of the Collector dated January 31, 1962 declaring 87.14 acres as surplus area and 138.31 acres as tenant s permissible area in the hands of Gobind Parshad, their father, was void and inoperative and for a permanent injunction restraining the appellants from utilising the said land under the provisions of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (for short, the Haryana Act). The material allegations made in the plaint were that the respondents and their father Govind Parshad constituted a joint Hindu family and owned 500 acres of agricultural land situate at village Fatehpuria, district Sirsa prior to April 15, 1953, the date on which the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (hereinafter called the Punjab Act) was enforced. In the year 1953 itself Gobind Parshad by way of family settlement transferred 170 acres of land in the name of his wife. Thereafter, family partition took place some time in the year 1954 whereby 3/5th of the remaining land fell to the share of Vinod Kumar, Rattan Lal and Om Parkash, respondents, whereas 2/5th was kept by Gobind Parshad and his 4th son Anil Kumar. Goind Parshad died on April 14, 1976 and the land held by him was mutated in the name of his son Anil Kumar and his widow.
2. The said order of the Collector was sought to be challenged mainly on two grounds that in spite of the fact that the plaintiffs were recorded owners of the land to the extent stated above, no notice was served upon them by the Collector before declaration of the surplus area and the tenant s permissible area and that the land measuring 432 bighas, 14 biswas out of the total holdings was banjar qadim, Banjar jadid and ghair mumkin and as such being not "land", as defined in the Punjab Act could not be counted towards the total holdings of the landowners.
3. The suit was contested by the appellants and one of the defences raised with which we are only concerned in this reference was that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit was barred by virtue of the provisions of S.26 of the Haryana Act. However, in the question framed reference has been made to the provisions of S.25 of the Punjab Act which admittedly is the relevant provision governing the present suit. The trial Court upheld the pleas of the State and dismissed the suit. On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge reversed the decree of the trial Court which led to the filing of this regular second appeal by the State.
4. Initially the appeal was heard by a Division Bench but in view of the fact that correctness of the Full Bench decision in Dhaunkal Sheo Ram V/s. Man Kauri Ram Jas, AIR 1970 Punj and Har 431 was challenged by the learned counsel for the respondents, the case was referred to the Full Bench of three Judges. The Full Bench being of the opinion that Dhaunkal Sheo Ram s case (supra) required reconsideration in view, of several decisions of the Supreme Court noticed in the reference order, referred the following question to the larger Bench:
"Whether an order of a Collector declaring land as surplus without affording the concerned landowner an opportunity of being heard, as envisaged by R.6 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956, is a nullity and whether a suit to challenge the validity of such an order is maintainable in view of the clear language of S.25 of the Act excluding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court?"
A Bench of Five-Judges in Harnek Singh V/s. State of Punjab, 1971 Pun LJ 727 : (AIR 1972 Punj and Har 232) (FB) authoritatively pronounced that a transfer of land by a big landowner is valid for all intents and purposes between the transferor and the transferee and the only effect of the provisions of S.10A(b) of the Punjab Act is that if the land, the subject/matter of transfer forms part of the surplus area at the commencement of the Act, the transfer shall not affect the right of the State to utilise it for the reset
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
