Back
2005 Supreme(All) 201
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Arun Tandon, J.
Sobha Singh, Dadu Singh
Versus
Udai Bhan Singh Shri Devi Dayal Singh, Chanda Shri Ram Khelawan,
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 53456 of 2003
Decided On : 04 February 2005
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 53456 Of 2003
AJAY SINGH, BIRENDRA SINGH, JAMAL AHMED, Rishikesh Tripathi,
The nature of the land on which the constructions were standing was deemed irrelevant for deciding the competence of the civil court to decide the suit, and the relief prayed for in the plaint could only be granted by the Civil Court and not the Revenue Court.
Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Civil Court - U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act - Section 33(i)(a), Section 38(1)(3) of the Specific Reliefs Act - The court held that the relief prayed for in the plaint, which was for eviction of the defendants from the house and Maveshikhana and for possession of the same, could only be granted by the Civil Court and not the Revenue Court. The nature of the land on which the constructions were standing was deemed irrelevant for deciding the competence of the civil court to decide the suit. The Revenue Court was found to have no jurisdiction to grant the relief as prayed for by the plaintiff, and the relief could only be granted by the competent civil court.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction for dispossession of the defendants from a house and Maveshikhana situated on agricultural land. The trial court held that the land was an agriculture holding and that the suit was not triable by the Civil Court, directing the plaintiff to initiate proceedings under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the relief prayed for in the plaint could only be granted by the Civil Court and not the Revenue Court, and that the nature of the land on which the constructions were standing was irrelevant for deciding the competence of the civil court to decide the suit.
Issues: The main issue was whether the suit was triable by the Civil Court or the Revenue Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the relief prayed for in the plaint, which was for eviction of the defendants from the house and Maveshikhana and for possession of the same, could only be granted by the Civil Court and not the Revenue Court. The nature of the land on which the constructions were standing was deemed irrelevant for deciding the competence of the civil court to decide the suit.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the order dated 1. 10. 2003 was quashed, and the trial court was directed to decide the suit at the earliest possible, preferably within six months from the date a certified copy of the order is filed before the trial court.
( 1 ) HEARD Sri Rishikesh Tripathi on behalf of the petitioner and Jamal Ahmad on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
( 2 ) PETITIONER Sobha Singh filed Original Suit No. 529 of 1993 for mandatory injunction for dispossession of the defendants from the house and Maveshikhana situate at Plot Nos. 323, 324, 325, 326 and 343 village and post Makari, Tehsil Atarra, District Banda
( 3 ) IN the said suit issue no. 10 was framed to the effect whether the disputed property is an agriculture land. For the purpose of decision of the aforesaid issue, the trial court referred the matter under Section 33 (i) (a) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act to the assistant Collector Atarra, Banda. The Assistant Collector, Atarra by means of his order dated 10. 6. 2002, after hearing the parties, answered the reference holding therein that the land covered by Plot Nos. 323, 324, 325, 326 and 343 is an agricultural land. In view of the aforesaid order of the Assistant Collector, the trial court decided issue no. 10 and held that the land covered by the plot Nos. 323, 324, 325, 326 and 343 is an agriculture holding.
( 4 ) THEREAFTER the trial court decided the issue no. 9, which was to the following effect: whether the suit is triable by the Civil Court.
( 5 ) THE trial court by means of order dated 21st December, 2002, held that the suit is not triable by the Civil Court and the proper remedy for the plaintiff was to initiate proceedings under the provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and for the said purpose the plaint was returned for presentation before the competent court of law. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the trial court dated 21st December, 2002, petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Banda. The appeal was numbered as Misc. Appeal No. 5/03; sobha Singh v. Udai Bhan Singh and others. The First Appellate Court has affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and directed that the suit was not cognizable by the Civil Court and plaint has rightly been returned for presentation before the competent court having jurisdiction (Revenue Court ). It is against the aforesaid orders, the present writ petition has been filed.
( 6 ) ON behalf of the petitioner it is contended that both the courts below have failed to take into consideration the relief prayed for in the plaint. According to petitioner the relief prayed for in the plaint was confined to the injunction qua to the house and Maveshikhana, which are situate at plot Nos. 323, 324, 325, 326 and 343. It is stated that the plaintiff has not prayed for any relief in respect of the agriculture holding. It is further submitted that the relief of eviction of defendant and possession to the plaintiff in respect of the residential house and Maveshikhana can be granted by the Civil Court only and therefore the suit as filed by the plaintiff is legally maintainable.
( 7 ) ON behalf of the respondent it is submitted that the Plot Nos. 323, 324, 325, 326 and 343 had not been declared Abadi and therefore the relief sought for by the plaintiff virtually amounts declaration that he was owner of said plots and therefore entitled to possession. According to defendant, such a relief can be granted in the proceedings initiated in the competent revenue court in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
( 8 ) I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the writ petition.
( 9 ) IN order to appreciate the controversy raised in the present writ petition, it would be worthwhile to mention the relief prayed for by the plaintiff petitioner in the suit, which read as follows:. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). .
( 10 ) FROM a bare reading of the relief so prayed by the plaintiff, it is apparently clear that he has prayed for eviction of the defendants from house and the Maveshikhana and for possession of the same being restored to the petitioner only.
