1. Recovery of possession under Section 6, Specific Relief Act — Objection to execution based on bar under Section 185, Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 1204
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, CJI., A.M. KHANWILKAR, D Y CHANDRACHUD, JJ.
HARPAL SINGH – APPELLANT
VERSUS
ASHOK KUMAR & ANR. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 022967 OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C ) No 27279 of 2015)
Decided On : 15-12-2017
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Validity of a decree can be challenged before an executing court only on the ground of an inherent lack of jurisdiction rendering the decree a nullity.
Validity of a decree can be challenged before an executing court only on the ground of an inherent lack of jurisdiction rendering the decree a nullity.
Subject
Civil Law - Land Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 – Section 185 – Bar of jurisdiction of civil court – Applies only in case of land defined in section 3(13) – Land not used for any purpose contemplated u/s 3(13) and has been built upon – Would cease to be agricultural land – Land converted into authorized/unauthorized colonies by dividing it into plots – Section 185 would not apply – Disputes of plot holders cannot be decided by the revenue authorities – Would have to be resolved by the civil court. (Para 6)
1986 RLR 432; (2008) 105 DRJ 122; 156 (2009) DLT 129; (2013) 137 DRJ 146 – Referred
(b) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXI, Rule 23 – Validity of a decree can be challenged before an executing court only on the ground of an inherent lack of jurisdiction rendering the decree a nullity – Executing court cannot go behind the decree – Instantly, Suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act not requiring a determination of question of title – Moreover, character of land changing from agricultural to residential – Section 185, Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 not attracted – Decree in the suit not without jurisdiction – Objection rightly dismissed. (Para 7, 9)
(1962) 2 SCR 747; (1977) 2 SCC 662; (2004) 12 SCC 555 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
A suit was instituted by the respondents for a permanent injunction, alleging that the defendants to the suit were threatening to interfere with the possession of their lands. The suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge holding it to be barred by the provisions of Section 185 (1) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.
Subsequently the respondents instituted a suit against the appellant, alleging that the appellant had forcibly taken possession of the land. The suit was decreed by the trial court ex-parte upon which execution was initiated by the respondents as decree-holders. In the course of the execution, the appellant filed objections on the ground that he was not concerned with the suit property and was not in possession and on the ground that the ex-parte decree was obtained by misrepresentation and fraud. The objections were dismissed in default and a warrant of possession was directed to be issued. The appellant’s objections to the execution of the decree were dismissed by the executing Court.
The order of the executing court was challenged by the appellant under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the petition.
Finding of the Court:
Objections to execution of decree were rightly dismissed.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the decree is a nullity due to lack of inherent jurisdiction as the suit was barred by Section 185, Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. (Para 4 )
3. Land converted to urban use ceases to be agricultural land under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, removing the bar on civil court jurisdiction. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 )
4. A decree can be challenged in execution only if the court lacked inherent jurisdiction, rendering the decree a nullity. (Para 7 )
5. Civil appeal dismissed. (Para 10 )
6. When does land cease to be agricultural land under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954?
Land ceases to be agricultural land if it is not used for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture, or animal husbandry and has been built upon or converted into authorized or unauthorized colonies. (Para 5 , 6 )
7. On what grounds can the validity of a decree be challenged during execution proceedings?
A decree's validity can be challenged in execution only on the ground of an inherent lack of jurisdiction, such as when the subject matter is wholly foreign to the court's jurisdiction, rendering the decree a nullity. (Para 7 )
8. Does the bar under Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 apply to urbanized land?
No. Once agricultural land loses its basic character and is converted into urban colonies, disputes are resolved by civil courts, and the bar under Section 185 is not attracted. (Para 6 , 9 )
JUDGMENT :
D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi, by a judgment dated 19 September 2014 rejected a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petition sought to challenge an order dated 21 August 2010 of the Additional District Judge (North) rejecting the objections of the appellant in the course of the execution of a decree.
3. Sometime in 2002 a suit was instituted by the respondents for a permanent injunction, alleging that the defendants to the suit were threatening to interfere with the possession of their lands situated at Nilothi, Delhi. The suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge on 14 February 2005, holding it to be barred by the provisions of Section 185 (1) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. The Trial court held that the plaintiff had failed to place any registered document on record to establish his ownership in respect of the land. Moreover, in the view of the trial Court, it was necessary for the plaintiffs to first seek a declaration from the revenue court as bhoomidars upon which alone an injunction could be sought. Subsequently, on 31 December 2005 the respondents instituted a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act against the appellant, alleging that the appellant had forcibly taken possession of the land. In response it was the case of the appellant that he was neither in possession of the land nor had he dispossessed the respondents. The suit was decreed by the trial court ex-parte on 30 May 2009, upon which execution was initiated by the respondents as decree-holders. In the course of the execution, the appellant filed objections on the ground that he was not concerned with the suit property and was not in possession and on the ground that the ex-parte decree was obtained by misrepresentation and fraud. The objections were dismissed in default on 16 April 2010 and a warrant of possession was directed to be issued by the ADJ (North)-04, Delhi. The appellant appears to have filed objections to the execution of the decree on 12 July 2010 on the ground that Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act bars a civil suit for the recovery of possession. The objections were dismissed by the executing Court on 21 August 2010 with the following observations:
“The Delhi Land Reforms Act is applicable with regard to the agricultural land only but the land in question is not agriculture land which has been vehemently argued by the counsel for the DH and in support of her contention placed on record the copies of the electricity bills pertaining to the same khasra number which is subject matter of the instant execution proceedings. Even otherwise, it is a matter of common knowledge that most of the rural land in Delhi has become urbanized and private colonies, may be unauthorized, have mushroomed on such agricultural land. This fact has since been substantiated with the help of electricity bills which takes out the sting from the contentions raised by the counsel for the objector and in the process strengthens the case of the DH, the arguments is thus, brushed aside that the court lack of inherent jurisdiction on account of the fact that land in question is governed by the Delhi Land Reforms Act being agriculture land.”
The order of the executing court was challenged by the appellant under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the petition by its judgment dated 19 September 2014. The High Court rejected the submission that the decree obtained under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was a nullity on the ground that the suit was barred by Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.
4. On behalf of the appellant it has been submitted that since an earlier suit seeking a permanent injunction was dismissed by a competent civil court in view of the provisions of Section 185(1) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954, and since the land is ‘agricultural’ in nature, the civil court did not have jurisdiction in the matter. The decree was a nulli
