Back
2007 Supreme(P&H) 1431
2008(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 568
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
RSA No.1676 of 1981
Mian Mohinder Singh (dead) through L.Rs.
v.
Punjab State
{Decided on 01/08/2007}
For the Appellants:Mr. G.S. Jaswal, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. H.G. Gill, DAG, Punjab.
IMPORTANT POINT
Revenue Law--A consolidation officer or a settlement officer cannot convert himself into a civil court to try a question of title.
Headnote:(A) East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, Sections 21 and 44—Revenue law--Consolidation—Jurisdiction of civil Court—If consolidation officer reachs a conclusion that a question of title is involved, they must stay their hands and leave question of title to be decided by civil Court—However, if they come to the conclusion that a question of title does not arises before them for the matter of framing the scheme of consolidation, then an aggrieved right holder has one of two course open (a) to go immediately to a civil Court and obtain a decision on question of title claimed by him or (b) if he does not pursue the first course, to go before a civil Court after the completion of partition and obtain a decision on question of title as claimed by him. (Para 7)
(B) East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, Sections 21 and 44—Revenue Law--Consolidation—Jurisdiction of civil Court— A consolidation officer or a settlement officer cannot convert himself into a civil Court to try any question of title that he considers arises in relation to any partition of a holding or holdings that becomes necessary to be provided in the scheme of consolidation. (Para 7)
Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral):- This order will dispose of RSA Nos.1676 of 1981, 812 of 1982 and 62 of 1984 all titled Mian Mohinder Singh Vs. Punjab State and Anr., as common questions of law and facts are involved in all these appeals.
2. For facility, the facts are being taken from RSA No.1676 of 1981.
The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated 21.9.1977 passed by Shri Ranjit Singh, Consolidation Officer, defendant No.2 vide which land of plaintiff has been given to the Forest Department is illegal, ultra-vires, void, without jurisdiction, non-est and against the principles of natural justice having been passed in clear and flagrant violation of the provisions of law. It was further claimed that the defendants are not entitled to implement the said order and dispossess the plaintiff.
3. On remand by the Additional Director vide order dated 2.5.1972 the Consolidation Officer, Jalandhar proceeded to decide the matter under section 21 (2) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act (for short the Act). It was observed that the repartition of the land in village was made and proceedings under section 21 (1) of the Act were completed on 18.3.1970. Prior to the consolidation, Mian Mohinder Singh for himself and on behalf of Smt. Bishan Devi at his responsibility had entered into compromise with the Forest Department that their land be exchanged. The Consolidation Officer set aside the said exchange by observing that in the process of exchange the Forest Department suffered decrease of 512 kanals of land and in view of this matter the exchange was said to be bad and consequently the order was passed taking away the land which was under the ownership of plaintiff.
4. The suit was contested raising several objections. One of the pleas raised was that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit in view of the bar under Section 44 of the Act.
5. Learned courts below recorded a finding that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit as the orders passed by the authorities under the Act could not be challenged in the civil court.
6. Mr.G.S.Jaswal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has challenged the finding recorded by the learned courts below primarily on the ground that the judgment and decrees passed by the courts below cannot be sustained in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ajit Singh Vs. Smt.Subaghan and others (1969)2 I.L.R. Punjab and Haryana 221.
Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the following substantial question of law arises in this appeal:
1. Whether the jurisdiction of the civil court can be treated to be barred even where the authorities under the Act have acted beyond their jurisdiction?
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the above mentioned substantial question of law deserves to be answered in favour of the appellant as in the present case the Consolidation Officer proceeded to decide the question of title between the parties. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that once an exchange was entered into between the parties and acted upon, it was not open to the Consolidation Officer to have seen the validity thereof as it could only be decided by the civil court whether the title acquired by the plaintiff-appellants was valid and sustainable in the eye of law. In the present case, the Consolidation Officer proceeded to decide this question and has set aside the exchange entered into between the parties which could not be done as mentioned above. In support of this contention reliance was placed on Ajit Singh’s case (supra) wherein this Court has been pleased to lay down as under:
“Held, that if a right holder endeavours to raise what he considers is a question of title at the time of the framing of the scheme of consolidation and objects to a provision in that scheme for partition so
