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

2023 Supreme(P&H) 811

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Karamjit Singh, J.
Om Pati and another - Appellants - Appellant
Versus
Hawa Singh and others - Respondents - Respondent
RSA-3582 of 2018 (O&M)
Decided On : 11-10-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Baldev Singh Badhran, Advocate, for the appellants.

The main legal point established is that the Civil Court's jurisdiction is excluded in matters within the jurisdiction of revenue officers as per Section 158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act.

Headnote:

Partition Proceedings - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Punjab Land Revenue Act, Section 13, Section 158 - The court affirmed that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit seeking to set aside the ex parte partition proceedings conducted by the revenue officer. The plaintiffs failed to avail the statutory remedy of filing an appeal to the Collector as per Section 13 of the Act, and Section 158 specifically excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in matters within the jurisdiction of the revenue officers. The court held that no question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for consideration before the Court.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs and defendants were co-sharers in joint land. Defendant No.1 initiated partition proceedings without serving notice to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking declaration that the partition proceedings and subsequent proceedings were illegal and not binding on them.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as per Section 158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. The plaintiffs failed to avail the statutory remedy of filing an appeal to the Collector as per Section 13 of the Act. The court affirmed the judgments of the lower courts and dismissed the appeal.

Issues: Jurisdiction of Civil Court, Validity of Partition Proceedings, Failure to Avail Statutory Remedy

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit seeking to set aside the partition proceedings. The plaintiffs failed to avail the statutory remedy of filing an appeal to the Collector as per Section 13 of the Act.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

KARAMJIT SINGH, J.

For convenience, the parties herein are described as per the recitals before the learned trial Court.

2. Having suffered concurrent adverse findings by two Courts below, the plaintiffs are in second appeal before this Court assailing the learned trial Court judgment and decree dated 30.9.2016, as upheld by the learned first Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 30.8.2017.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case of the plaintiffs are that the plaintiffs and defendants were co-sharer in the joint land. Defendant No.1-Hawa Singh filed an application for partition of the said land in the Court of Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Kaithal; that the plaintiffs were not served any notice of the partition proceedings and the partition proceedings were conducted at the back of the plaintiffs and the partition proceedings were finally decided by the AC, 1st Grade, Kaithal on 11.5.2010 without following proper procedure and thus, the entire partition proceedings are liable to be set aside being illegal, null and void. Consequently, the plaintiffs filed suit for declaration that the partition proceedings which were initiated on 18.1.2009 and decided on 11.5.2010 and sanad taksim and all the subsequent proceedings including mutation No.3028 and subsequent revenue entries are illegal, null & void and not binding on the plaintiffs with regard to the suit land.

4. The suit was contested by defendant No.1 and the said defendant took plea that in the partition proceedings which were initiated at the instance of the answering defendant, notice was sent but the plaintiffs failed to appear before the concerned revenue authorities despite their due service and accordingly, plaintiff No.1 was proceeded against ex parte on 17.3.2009 while plaintiff No.2 was proceeded against ex parte on 27.1.2009 and the application for partition filed by the answering defendant was finally decided on 11.5.2010 and thereafter, warrant of possession was duly executed and resultantly, mutation No.3028 was also entered in the revenue record. The answering defendant also took plea that no appeal or revision was filed by the plaintiffs against the order passed by the AC, 1st Grade, Kaithal regarding partition of the suit land as per provisions of Section 13 of Punjab Land Revenue Act (as applicable in the State of Haryana) (in short, “the Act”). It was further pleaded that the Civil Court is having no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit as the same is barred under Section 158 of the Act.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court in the case : -

    1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP

2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

4. Whether suit is time barred? OPD

5. Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD

6. Relief.

6. In order to prove the case, plaintiff No.1 stepped into the witness box as PW1 and also examined PW2-Ramesh Chand, Record Keeper, Record Room DC Office, Kaithal and PW3- Kuldeep Singh, Halqa Patwari. The plaintiffs also produced copy of order of partition Ex.PA, copy of Naksha Kha Ex.PB and Ex.PC, copy of Naksha Zim Ex.PD, copy of Naksha Bay Ex.PE, copy of Naksha Zim Ex.PF, copy of Khasra Girdawari Ex.PF, Sanad Taksim Araji Ex.PH, copy of Rapat Vakyati Ex.PI, copy of mutation Ex.PJ and Naksha Taksim Ex.PK.

7. On the other hand, counsel for defendant No.1 examined DW1-Hawa Singh, DW2-Ramesh Chand, Record Keeper, Record Room, DC Office, Kaithal and DW3-Dhoop Singh, Retired Naib Tehsildar and also tendered copy of execution application Ex.DA, copy of warrant of possession Ex.DB, copy of letter written by Field Kanungo to Halqa Patwari Ex.DC, Copy of order of AC 1st Grade, Kaithal Ex.DD, copy of proceedings dated 2.6.2011 Ex.DE, copy of jamabandi for the year 2005-06 Ex.D

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