Civil courts lack jurisdiction in consolidation disputes, reaffirming the statutory bar under the East Punjab Holdings Act.

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

1. The plaintiffs are in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of both the Courts below whereby suit for declaration filed by the appellant-plaintiff to the effect that the suit land as described in the plaint is jointly owned and possessed by the plaintiffs and the other co-sharers, has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

2. Mr. Munish Jolly, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 2 and submits Vakalatnama, which is taken on record. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the present second appeal is not maintainable as the same is against the orders passed by the Consolidation Officers. It is pointed out that the suit land was received by the respondents in consolidation proceedings as, certain less land was given to them. Respondents had made an application before the Consolidation Authorities which was allowed and deficiency was made good vide orders dated 18.08.1992 and 20.10.1995. It is submitted that against the orders of the Consolidation Authorities, civil suit is not maintainable, as per law laid down by this Court in Joginder Nath @

Joginder Pal vs. Sat Pal, 2010 Civil Court Cases 737 (P&H).

3. Heard.

4. Perusal of the order-sheets reveals that the matter pertains to the year 2014 and on the first 03 dates of hearing i.e. 19.05.2014, 02.03.2015 and 04.08.2015, the appeal was adjourned either at the request of learned counsel for the appellants or on account of non-appearance on behalf of the appellants. On 15.02.2016, when this case was listed for hearing, following order was passed by the Predecessor Bench of this Court:-

“The learned arguing counsel is stated to be in personal difficulty.

Even on the last two dates none has caused representation.

It appears that the learned counsel has lost interest in the matter.

Adjourned sine die.

The registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the appellant.”

5. Subsequently, upon an application moved by the appellants, the present appeal was listed for preliminary hearing vide order dated 09.11.2016; and finally, notice of motion in the present appeal was issued vide order dated 08.12.2016. On the last date of hearing, i.e. 19.03.2025, fresh notices were ordered to be issued to the respondents. Today, again the appellants have gone un-represented despite the case having been called twice.

6. Moreover, besides the afore-noted submissions made by learned counsel for respondent No. 2, it is found by the Courts below that as per the evidence on record, the plaintiffs have been unable to make out as to how they have acquired the rights over the suit land. Even nothing has been stated by the plaintiffs with regard to their possession over the suit land. During cross-examination, the plaintiff(s) had taken a different stance from that in the plaint and had deposed that the suit land is a common land of the villagers. If that is so, in any event jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. Relevant, para No. 10 of the judgment and decree dated 13.02.2013, passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court, reads as follows:-

“10. The record, after hearing arguments with regard to the grounds of appeal as per rival oral as well as documentary evidence referred above has been perused as per law discussed in Joginder Nath alias Joginder Pal VS. Sat Pal, 2010 Civil Court Cases 734, (P&H) vide which it was held as under;-

East Punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) Act, 1948, Sections 42 ,44, bar of civil court jurisdiction, change of consolidation scheme without impleading and without notice to the affected parties in violation of mandatory provision of provision to S42, whenever principles of natural justice are violated, the order becomes nullity and civil court gets jurisdiction irrespective of