Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Dwarka Dhish Bansal, J.
Olpherts Private Ltd. Through Director B. D. Gautam, Katni v. Sarla Devi Mahila Mandal Through President Smt. Priyanka Yadav & Others
Civil Revision No. 796 of 2023 (Jabalpur): against the order dated 19.7.2023 passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Katni in RCS-A No. 218/2021; Decided on 13.2.2024.
¼1½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-ç-½ && èkkjk 257 rFkk 248¼3½ && flfoy U;k;ky; dh vfèkdkfjrk && èkkjk 248 d¢ vèkhu csn[kyh dk vkns'k 23-2-2021 d¨ ikfjr fd;k x;k && la'k¨èku vfèkfu;e] 2000 }kjk èkkjk 248 dh mièkkjk ¼3½ foy¨fir dh xà && foy¨iu dk çÒko && gd d¢ ç'u ij flfoy U;k;ky; dh vfèkdkfjrk oftZr ugÈA
vfÒfuèkkZfjr% ;|fi lafgrk dh èkkjk 248 dh mièkkjk ¼3½ o"kZ 2000 esa foy¨fir dh xbZ Fkh] rFkkfi fookfnr laifÙk ij@ds laca/k esa gd LFkkfir@fofuf'pr djus d¢ fo"k; esa flfoy U;k;ky;¨a dh vfèkdkfjrk oftZr djus ls lacaf/kr lafgrk dh èkkjk 257 esa d¨Ã la'k¨èku ugÈ fd;k x;k] vr%] ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd lafgrk dh /kkjk 248 dh mi/kkjk ¼3½ ds foyksiu dk çHkko flfoy U;k;ky; dh vfèkdkfjrk oftZr djus dk gSA ¼iSjk 15
;|fi lafgrk dh èkkjk 248 d¢ vkns'k d¢ fo#) lafgrk dh èkkjk 44 d¢ vèkhu mi[kaM vfèkdkjh d¢ le{k çFke vihy dk mipkj gS ijarq] tSlk bl U;k;ky; }kjk larçlkn fo#) tokgj flag 1963 ,eih,yts&,l,u 45 d¢ ekeys esa vfÒfuèkkZfjr fd;k gS] foy¨iu dk ;g fuoZpu ugÈ fd;k tk ldrk fd ftl oknh us jktLo U;k;ky; d¢ le{k vius mipkj dk drbZ vuqlj.k ugÈ fd;k gS] og viuk gd LFkkfir djus d¢ fy, flfoy U;k;ky; esa okn djus ls çokfjr gSA ;gk¡ ;g mYys[k djuk çklafxd gS fd lafgrk dh èkkjk 248 dh dk;Zokgh esa ikfjr vkns'k¨a d¨ vafrerk ugÈ nh xà gS] fo'ks"kr% flfoy U;k;ky; d¢ le{k gd dh LFkkiuk d¢ lacaèk esaA 1999 jkfu 328 ¼mPpre U;k-½ rFkk ¼2019½ 8 ,llhlh 729 vuqlfjrA 1968 jkfu 683 ¾ 1969 ts,yts 1 ¼mPpre U;k-½ fufnZ"VA 2007 jkfu 95 ¼mPp U;k-½ çÒsfnrA ¼iSjk 16
esjh lqfopkfjr jk; esa] ;fn lafgrk dh èkkjk 248 d¢ vèkhu vkns'k ls O;fFkr d¨Ã O;fä vius vfèkdkj¨a@gd dh Ĩ"k.kk d¢ fy, okn çLrqr djuk pkgrk gS rks mlls ;g visf{kr ugÈ gS fd og lafgrk d¢ vèkhu miyC/k vihy ds vkuqdfYid@dkuwuh mipkj dk ykHk ys] og viuk gd LFkkfir djus d¢ fy, lhèks flfoy U;k;ky; esa flfoy okn çLrqr dj ldrk gSA bl çdkj] jktLo çFke vihy d¢ yacu d¢ n©jku flfoy okn çLrqr djus ls d¨Ã çfrdwy çÒko ugÈ iM+rkA ¼iSjk 21
¼2½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && èkkjk 9 && Òkjr dk lafoèkku && vuq- 226 rFkk 227 && vkuqdfYid mipkj dh miyC/krk && ykxw g¨uk && ,slk mipkj d¢oy vuqPNsn 226 rFkk 227 d¢ vèkhu mPp U;k;ky; d¢ le{k tkus ij ykxw g¨rk gS && flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk dh èkkjk 9 d¢ vèkhu flfoy U;k;ky; dh vfèkdkfjrk dk vkJ; ysus ij ugÈ] tc rd fd flfoy U;k;ky; dh vfèkdkfjrk Li"Vr% vioftZr ugha dh xà g¨A ¼2005½ 6 ,llhlh 499] ¼2005½ 8 ,llhlh 264] ¼2002½ 5 ,llhlh 416 rFkk ¼2005½ 10 ,llhlh 124 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 19
¼3½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 7 fu- 11 && e-ç- Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 && èkkjk 248¼3½ rFkk 257¼c&,d½ && vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 d¢ vèkhu okni= [kkfjt djus d¢ fy, vis{kk,¡ && okn fofèk d¢ micaèk }kjk oftZr g¨uk g¨rk gS && èkkjk 248 d¢ fo"k; esa èkkjk 257¼c&,d½ d¢ vèkhu flfoy okn çLrqr djus dk t¨ otZu micafèkr gS] og flfoy U;k;ky; d¢ le{k gd LFkkfir djus d¢ fy, ykxw ugÈ g¨rkA ¼iSjk 20
(1) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M. P.) -- Ss. 257 and 248(3) -- jurisdiction of civil Court -- order of dispossession passed on 23.2.2021 under section 248 -- omission of sub-section (3) of section 248 by Amendment Act of 2000 -- effect of omission -- jurisdiction of civil Court on question of title not barred.
Held : Held: Although sub-section (3) of section 248 of the Code was omitted in the year 2000 but no amendment was made in section 257 of the Code barring jurisdiction of civil Courts regarding establishment/decision of/about title over the disputed property, therefore, it cannot be said that omitting of sub-section (3) of section 248 of the Code has effect of excluding jurisdiction of civil Court. [Para 15
Although against the order of section 248 of the Code there is remedy of first appeal under section 44 of Code before SDO but, as has been held by this Court in the case of Santprasad v. Jawaharsingh 1963 MPLJ N-45, the omission cannot be interpreted to mean that a litigant who has not pursued his remedy before the revenue Court at all, is precluded from bringing a suit in the civil Court to establish his title. It is pertinent to mention here that under the Code, finality has not been given to the orders passed in the proceedings under section 248 of the Code, especially in respect of establishment of title before civil Court. 1999 RN 328 (SC) and (2019) 8 SCC 729 followed. 1968 RN 683 = 1969 JLJ 1 (SC) referred to. 2007 RN 95 (HC) distinguished. [Para 16
In my considered opinion, if a person aggrieved by order under section 248 of the Code wishes to file a suit for declaration of his rights/title, he is not required to avail the alternative/statutory remedy of appeal available under the Code and he can file civil suit directly in civil Court for establishing his title. As such, filing of civil suit during pendency of revenue first appeal, has no adverse effect. [Para 21
(2) Civil P. C., 1908 -- S. 9 -- Constitution of India -- Arts. 226 and 227 -- availability of alternative remedy -- applicability -- such remedy is applicable only in case of approaching High Court under Articles 226 and 227 -- not in respect of invoking of jurisdiction of civil Court under section 9 of CPC, unless jurisdiction of civil Court is clearly excluded. (2005) 6 SCC 499, (2005) 8 SCC 264, (2002) 6 SCC 416 and (2005) 10 SCC 124 referred to. [Para 19
(3) Civil P. C., 1908 -- O. 7 R. 11 -- M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 -- Ss. 248(3) and 257(B-i) -- requirements for rejection of plaint under Order 7 rule 11 -- suit has to be barred by provision of law -- in respect of section 248, bar provided for filing civil suit under section 257 (B-i) is not applicable for establishment of title before Civil Court. [Para 20
ORDER
1. This civil revision has been preferred by the petitioner/defendant 1 challenging the order dtd. 19.7.2023 passed by 3rd Civil Judge Junior Division, Katni in RCSA No.218/2021 whereby defendant 1’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiffs/ respondents 1-2 being encroachers on the land, an order of dispossession was passed on 23.2.2021 by Tahsildar Katni under section 248 of the MP Land Revenue Code, 1959 (in short ‘the Code’), against which an appeal was preferred by the plaintiffs before SDO, which was also dismissed on 23.9.2021, but during pendency of this appeal itself, the plaintiffs instituted instant suit on 27.7.2021 even without waiting for decision of revenue first appeal. He submits that the order passed by SDO was also challenged by plaintiffs before Additional Commissioner by filing revenue second appeal, which was dismissed on 28.10.2021 as not maintainable and W.P. No. 24685/2021 filed against which, was not entertained due to filing of civil suit and was disposed off on 15.11.2021 by the High Court and taking benefit of this order passed by High Court observing therein to pursue remedy of civil suit, the plaintiffs want to continue with the suit, whereas on the date of filing of civil suit, it was not maintainable without exhausting all the statutory remedies available under the Code. By placing reliance on decision of Supreme Court in the case of DHUL ABHAI ETC. v. STATE OF M.P. AND ANOTHER 1968 RN 683 - 1969 JLJ 1 = AIR 1969 SC 78 (para 32) he submits that where a special statute provides alternative remedy, then jurisdiction of civil Court is excluded. Although he also placed reliance on a decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mansik Chikitsalaya, Gwalior (Director) 2007(1) MPLJ 206 = 2007 RN 95, but learned senior counsel himself concedes and submits that of course the plaintiffs can file civil suit seeking declaration of title before civil Court but they can do so only after exhausting all the statutory remedies available under the Code. He submits that if plaintiffs do not challenge the order of section 248 of the Code dtd. 23.2.2021 by availing all the statutory remedies, the order becomes final and in any case in midway they cannot file the civil suit. He further submits that plaintiffs have no cause of action because they have filed the suit for declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession and have not been able to place sufficient material before the civil Court, for acquisition of title on the basis of adverse possession and just with a view to protect their possession, they have filed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, in which their application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, has already been dismissed. With the aforesaid submissions learned senior counsel prays for allowing the civil revision.
Relevant part of order dtd. 15.11.2021 passed in WP No. 24685 of 2021 is quoted as under :
“Considering the aforesaid and the fact that a civil suit challenging the order of revenue authority is pending before the Civil Court, in such a circumstance, two parallel proceedings in respect of the same order are not maintainable. However, the petitioner is directed to pursue the civil suit.”
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1-2/plaintiffs supports the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the civil revision.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. In the present case, the plaintiffs have instituted a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction on the basis of adverse possession claiming themselves to be in possession of the land w.e.f. the year 1956-57 and such suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction on the basis of adverse possession is maintainable in the light of decision of Supreme Court in the case of RAVINDER KAUR GREWAL AND OTHERS v. MANJIT KAUR AND OTHERS (2019) 8 SCC 729. Relevant p
Adverse possession claims require substantial proof of open, continuous possession and are barred from consideration in Civil Courts when conflicting with revenue orders under the Himachal Pradesh La....
The court emphasized that a plaintiff cannot pursue a civil suit to establish title without challenging a binding order from a revenue authority.
Civil Courts possess jurisdiction to adjudicate easementary rights despite revenue authority's orders, provided disputes are not in respect of Government land.
Civil courts lack jurisdiction over agricultural land disputes when a revenue suit is pending, and merits cannot be evaluated at the application stage under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Civil courts retain jurisdiction to adjudicate on matters showing procedural irregularities in revenue court decisions, even if some claims are governed by the OLR Act.
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
