RSA No.252/2013 Page 1 of 14

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

RSA No. 252/2013

%

15^th January, 2014

SURESH BALA & ORS

......Appellants

Through:

Mr. B.S.Mann, Advocate.

VERSUS

RAMPAL

...... Respondent

Through:

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. This regular second appeal impugns the judgment of the appellate

court dated 20.7.2013 by which the appellate court set aside the judgment of

the trial court dismissing the suit as being not maintainable in the civil court

in view of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. The case of

the appellants before this court, and who were the defendants in the suit, is

that Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act is a complete bar to the

maintainability of the suit. Reliance is placed on behalf of the appellants

upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Om

Prakash & Ors. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. LPA No.81/2012

decided on 11.9.2012.

RSA No.252/2013 Page 2 of 14

2. At the outset, it must be stated that the civil courts’ jurisdiction is

barred by virtue of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act only if the

proceedings before the civil court are either in form or in substance

such/those proceedings which are found in any of the entries in Schedule-I

to the Delhi Land Reforms Act. Schedule-I of the Delhi Land Reforms Act

contains a total of 9 columns for each of the entries. The third column is the

description of the proceedings, however, what is more important is column-2

because description of the proceedings are only those as are relatable to the

specific sections which are mentioned in column-2 of Schedule-I. Putting it

in other words description of the nature of the proceedings in column-3 does

not have independent existence which is to be conclusive of the nature of the

proceedings and the nature of the proceedings in column-3 have also to be

the proceedings which are subject of the specific sections in column-2 of the

same entry. I have had an occasion to extensively examine this aspect in the

judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Smt. Munni Devi & Ors.

RFA 621/2003 decided on 5.3.2012 wherein I have held that by virtue of

Section 185 only those proceedings cannot be tried by civil court if such

proceedings necessarily fall within any of the entries read with sections as

contained in Schedule-I of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. The relevant

RSA No.252/2013 Page 3 of 14

observations as contained in the said judgment are in paras 5 to 7 and which

read as under:-

“5.

In my opinion, the trial Court has fallen into a

grave error in holding that the Civil Courts did not have

jurisdiction in view of Section 185 of the Act. Section 185 has

already been reproduced above and which Section shows that

the Revenue Courts have jurisdiction to try such suits which

are mentioned in columns 2 and 3 of the Schedule I of the Act,

and it is only with respect to such suits that the jurisdiction of

the Civil Courts will be barred. The sections and type of the

suits which are mentioned in columns 2 & 3 of the Schedule I

of the Act, do not cover suits such as the subject suit for

declaration, injunction and for cancellation of a sale

deed/power of attorney on the ground of the same having been

forged and fabricated. Such causes of action/reliefs of

declaration and injunction which pertain to invalidity of the

title documents which are said to have been got executed on

the basis of a forged and fabricated General Power of Attorney

are not covered under any of the