Civil courts are barred from hearing suits related to land under Urban Ceiling proceedings, emphasizing the need for utilizing statutory remedies instead.

ORDER :

Gajendra Singh, J.

This Civil Revision under Section 115 of the CPC is preferred challenging the legality of the order dated 07.07.2023 in RCSA/95/2017 passed by 6th Civil Judge Junior Division, Ujjain, whereby the application filed by the petitioners/defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC (Annexure-A-2) has been rejected.

2. The facts in brief are that the respondent/plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. RCSA No.95/17 before the learned 4" Civil Judge, Class-IInd, Ujjain for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit land bearing survey no. 136/2 area 0.836, 139/2/1 area 0.784, 147/2/1 area 1.431, 151/1 area 0.967, 222/3/2 area 0.136, 223/1/2 area 1.296, 228/1 area 0.794, 229/1/1 area 0.554, 327/ area 0.021, 380/1 area 0.021, 381/1 area 0.315, 382 area 0.125, 383 area 0.042 hectare total Survey No.13 area 7.042 hectare situated at village Ninamwasa Tehsil and Distt. Ujjain. The suit land was under Urban Ceiling therefore proceedings under Urban Ceiling Act were initiated against the original Bhumi Swami of the land namely Ayodhya bai and others. That as per the plaint allegation the present respondents were cultivating the said land in question and had also established a bricks kiln. It is further averred in the plaint that the name of the present respondent was mutated in the name of present respondent (Plaintiffs) by Tehsildar in Mutation case no. 18/A-46/1981-82. The said case was filed against the original Bhumi Swami and Tehsildar after recording evidence mutated the name of the present respondent. That, as per the averments in the plaint notice u/s 10(1) 10(5) and 10(3) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 was issued against the original Bhumi Swami and possession of the land was taken in the 1999 on papers only and no physical possession was taken from the present respondent.

3. Petitioners/Defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC on 12.07.2022 for rejection of plaint on the ground that the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred as per the judgment State of MP. Vs. Ghisalal , (2021) SCC Online SC 1098.

4. The application was opposed by the respondent plaintiffs vide reply dated 22.07.2022, copy of which has been brought on record vide Document No. 6177 of 2024. Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff opposed the petition referring to the documents Annexure-R-1 to Annexure-R-187 and relying on Gopal Jamdar (dead) through Lrs Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2013(I) MPJR 250, Bhudeo Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others , AIR 1984 Allahabad 386, Bhourka Investment Private Ltd Vs. Competent Authority and others , 1998 (2) Vidhi Bhasvar 294, Sohan Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. and others , 2008 (3) MPLJ, 365, Sudhir Agrawal and another Vs. State of M.P. and others , 2004 (I)MPJR SN 42, Radheshyam and others Vs. Commissioner, Indore and another , 2008 (I) MPJR SN 8, Munshi Ram and others Vs. Delhi Administration , AIR 1968 SC 702 , Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Vs. Subhash Sindhi Co-operative Housing Society Jaipur and others , AIR 2013 SC 1226 , Shantibai W/o Premlal and others Vs. State of M.P. and others , 2011(2) MPLJ 307 , Govind Prasad Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and others , 2011 (4) MPLJ 355 , Sunil Vs. State of M.P , 2015 (2) MPLJ 441 , Bhau Ram Vs. Janak Singh and others , 2012 (4) MPLJ 481 , P.V. Guru Raj Reddy Rep. by GPA Laxmi Narayan Reddy and another Vs. P. Neeradha Reddy and others etc. , 2015 SAR (Civil) 385 and State of M.P. Vs. Ghisilal , 2022 (2) MPLJ 587.

5. Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)