Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.: - The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 18.1.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, dismissing appeal filed by present appellants-plaintiffs against judgment and decree dated 15.9.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mahendergarh, dismissing suit filed by present appellants-plaintiffs.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below.

3. Briefly stated, appellants-plaintiffs filed this suit for a decree for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of the land in dispute in equal shares and that respondents-defendants have no concern with the same. They have also challenged order passed by Prescribed Authority Mahendergarh, dated 10.4.1995, order of Collector Mahendergarh at Narnaul, dated 21.9.1995, and order dated 27.9.1995 passed by Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, under Haryana Ceiling on Lands Holdings Act, 1972 (for short ‘the Act’) being illegal, void and not binding upon their rights.

4. On notice being issued, joint written statement was filed by respondents-defendants contesting the same, inter alia, on the ground that orders were legally passed by the competent authorities, i.e., Prescribed Authority, Collector and Commissioner under the Act and that the present suit is not maintainable as jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred to entertain and decide the present suit.

5. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by appellants-plaintiffs, inter alia, on the ground that jurisdiction of Civil Court is clearly barred under Section 26 of the Act. Appeal filed by present appellants-plaintiffs against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, holding, inter alia, that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the controversy in dispute.

6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the impugned orders passed by Prescribed Authority, Collector and the Commissioner are not in accordance with the Act and the Rules and hence, they are null and void and hence, it is contended that Civil Court is having jurisdiction to entertain and decide the controversy in dispute. On the point he has also placed reliance upon Roshan Lal v. Municipal Committee, Nabha 1996 PLJ 124.

7. However, there is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellants. So far as Roshan Lal’s case (supra) is concerned, the same was regarding an order passed by the competent authority under Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 and interpretation of Section 86 of the said Act, which ousts jurisdiction of Civil Court to determine and decide the question regarding valuation or assessment or liability of a person to be assessed or taxed. While dealing with the said matter, this Court observed as under:-

“4. It is true that despite the exclusion of jurisdiction the Civil Court would be entitled to entertain a suit and decide the lis if it is urged that the power under the special statue has been exercised in contravention with the provisions of law or by a person not authorised under the law to decide the same or that the question to be determined was beyond the scope of the enactment. The Civil Court may also be justified to entertain the suit if it is proved that the authority exercising the power have exceeded the powers conferred upon it under a special statute.”

8. However, in the present case orders were passed by the competent authorities under the Act and in accordance with Rules. Hence, it cannot be said that the power has been exercised in contravention with the provisions of law or by any person not authorised under the law to decide the same or that the question to be determined was beyond the scope of the enactment. It is also not such a case that the authorities exercising the powers have exceeded the powers