Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
S. K. DUBEY, S. K. CHAWLA
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Appellant
Versus
GYASIRAM - Respondents
MISC. PETN. 88 Of 1992
Decided On : 11/19/1992
LAND REVENUE - DISPUTE BETWEEN STATE AND PERSON - JURISDICTION - CIVIL COURT BARRED - S. 57 (2) OF M. P. LAND REVENUE CODE, 1959 - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, claiming ownership of agricultural land by adverse possession. The State Government, as defendant, raised a preliminary issue that the suit was not cognizable by the Civil Court due to S. 57 (2) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, which vests jurisdiction in the Sub-Divisional Officer for deciding such disputes.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that a dispute between the State Government and any person in respect of any right under S. 57 (1) of the Code, including ownership, must be decided by the Sub-Divisional Officer under S. 57 (2). A civil suit can only be instituted to challenge the validity of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer under S. 57 (3). The Court further clarified that disputes about rights short of ownership, acquired after the commencement of the Code, can be directly brought in a Civil Court, as they fall outside the ambit of S. 57 (1).
Issues: 1. Whether a civil suit is cognizable by the Civil Court in a dispute between the State Government and a person regarding any right under S. 57 (1) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, in light of S. 57 (2) of the Code, which vests jurisdiction in the Sub-Divisional Officer? 2. Whether disputes about rights short of ownership, acquired after the commencement of the Code, can be directly brought in a Civil Court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. S. 57 (1) of the Code declares the ownership of all types of land in the State Government, except for rights subsisting at the coming into force of the Code. S. 57 (2) mandates that disputes between the State Government and any person regarding any right under S. 57 (1) shall be decided by the Sub-Divisional Officer. 2. S. 57 (3) allows an aggrieved person to institute a civil suit to contest the validity of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer within one year from the date of the order. 3. The Court interpreted that the exclusion of Civil Court's jurisdiction is implied by the statutory provisions, as the statute creates a special right and provides a specific mechanism for its determination, indicating an intent to confer finality to the proceedings. 4. The Court emphasized that the bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts should not be readily inferred and must be either explicitly expressed or clearly implied by the statutory provisions.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition, quashing the order of the revisional Court that held the Civil Court's jurisdiction. The Court held that the suit involving a dispute as to ownership of land between the State Government and private persons could not have been directly brought in the Civil Court.
( 1 ) IN this petition, under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, the State of Madhya Pradesh has raised a question for decision whether a suit, where a dispute arises between the State Government and any person in respect of any right under S. 57 (1) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, the 'code') is cognizable by civil Court in view of S. 57 (2) of the Code, which vests jurisdiction in Sub-Divisional Officer for deciding such dispute.
( 2 ) MATERIAL facts leading to this petition are thus : the respondents Nos. 1 to 5/plaintiffs filed a suit averring therein that the plaintiffs are in settled possession since last 65 years as owner and have perfected their title by adverse possession over agricultural land, situated at Survey No. 565, area 14 biswas, in village Jouri, Tehsil and District Morena. It is only on 30/05/1989 the plaintiffs came to know that in revenue records, the State is recorded as owner of the land, this entry is against the rights and title of the plaintiffs, therefore, they be declared as owner of the suit land and the orders dated 18-10-1989 and 19-10-1989 for granting lease of the suit land in favour of the petitioner No. 2 the Department of Commerce and Industries/defendant for setting up industries be declared as illegal and ineffective and a permanent injunction be issued against the defendants, restraining them not to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs. The petitioners/defendants in their written-statement took the defence that the land is of the ownership of the State, the plaintiffs by a stray and single entry in the revenue record of Samvat 2046 in Col. 12 as that of trespassers, are not entitled to claim declaration of ownership as against the State. A plea about the maintainability of the suit in the Civil Court, based on S. 57 (2) of the Code was also raised.
( 3 ) THE trial Court decided the preliminary issue and held that the suit was not cognizable by the Civil Court. The respondents/plaintiffs preferred a revision, wherein, the order was reversed holding that suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction was not barred u/s. 57 (2) of the Code. Aggrieved by the order of the revisional Court, the Petitioners have approached this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.
( 4 ) SHRI R. A. Roman, Government Advocate for the petitioners and Shri R. D. Jain, counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs heard.
( 5 ) BEFORE the enforcement of the Code on 2-10-1959 in the State of Madhya Pradesh, different laws dealing with land revenue, land tenure and other matters relating thereto in the different regions of the State were in force. Therefore, to consolidate and amend the law relating to land revenue, the powers of Revenue Officers, rights and liabilities of holders of land from the State Government, agricultural tenures and other matters relating to land and the liabilities incidental thereto in Madhya Pradesh, the legislature enacted the Code. ( 6 ) S. 57 of the Code declares the ownership in all types of land in the State Government, S. 57, reads thus :"57. State ownership in all lands - (1) All lands belong to the State Government and it is hereby declared that all such lands, including standing and flowing water, mines, quarries, minerals and forests reserved or not, and all rights in the sub-soil of any land are the property of the State Government. Provided that nothing in this Section shall, (save as otherwise provided in this Code) be deemed to affect any rights of any person subsisting at the coming into force of this Code in any such property. (2) Where a dispute arises between the State Government and any person in respect of any right under Sub-Sec. (1) such dispute shall be decided by the Sub-Divisional Officer. (3) Any person aggrieved by any order passed under Sub-Sec. (2) may institute a Civil suit to contest the validity of the order within a period of one year from the date of such order. (3-A) (a) Notwithstanding anyth
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
