Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 213

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.
The Competent Authority Calcutta, Under the Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act, 1976 And Anr. – Appellants
Versus
David Mantosh & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.10629-10631 OF 2014
Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals Ltd. - Appellants
Versus
David Mantosh & Ors. - Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.9829-9830 OF 2016
Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals Ltd. - Appellants
Versus
David Mantosh & Ors. - Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL No.9900 OF 2016
Decided on : 26-02-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For Appellant(s) : Mr.Pratap Venugopal, Adv. Ms.Surekha Raman, Adv. Mr.Purushottam Kumar, Adv. Mr.N.Prashant Kumar, Adv. Mr.Akhil Roy, Adv. Mr.Sahil Singh, Adv. M/S.K.J. John & Co. Ms.Madhumita Bhattacharjee, AOR Ms.Srija Choudhury, Adv.
For Respondent(s):Mr.Dhruv Mehta, Adv. Mr.Gurudatta Ankolekar, Adv. Mr.Krishna Parkhani, Adv. Mr.Neelkanth Dyaneshwar Aher, Adv. Mr.Chandan Shreekant Malapur, Adv. Ms.Madhumita Bhattacharjee, AOR Respondent-in-person M/s.K.J.John & Co.

IMPORTANT POINT
Jurisdiction of Civil Courts to try civil suits with respect to lands which are subjected to ceiling proceedings under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, are barred.

Headnote:Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – Sections 12(4), 13, 30, 33(1), 33(3), 33(5) and 40 – Land ceiling proceeding – Issuance of notification – Act is a self-contained code in itself which provides complete machinery while dealing with rights of landowners in relation to their lands which are in excess of ceiling limits prescribed under the Act – It also provides adequate remedies to correct all kinds of errors committed by competent authority under the Act – Act gives finality to orders passed by appellate authority – Section 33 also provides bar to file civil suits in relation to cases falling under Section 30 (5) and Section 40 of Act – Jurisdiction of Civil Courts to try civil Suits with respect to lands which were subjected to ceiling proceedings under the Act, are held to be impliedly barred, since Act excludes jurisdiction of Civil Court – Division Bench was not justified in allowing Respondents’ appeal, and decreeing Civil Suit whereas Trial Court was right in dismissing Civil Suit – Impugned judgments set aside and judgment of Trial Court is restored. (Paras 50, 55, 56, 63, 72,76 and 77)
       Facts of Case:
       Civil Suit was filed for declaration and possession of the suit property. Plaintiffs claimed declaration that the entire proceedings which culminated in issuance of notification dated 12.02.1990 under Section 10 (1) of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 in relation to suit property be declared null and void and plaintiffs be declared owners of suit property. Question, which arises for consideration in these appeals, is whether Division Bench of High Court was justified in allowing appeal filed by Plaintiffs’ (Respondent Nos. 1 to 7) and decreeing suit.
       Findings of Court:
       On comparing scheme of Land Acquisition Act with scheme of present Act in question, we find that intention of Legislature is more explicit in excluding jurisdiction of Civil Court under Act in question. Respondent Nos. 1 to 7/ Plaintiffs having failed to raise objections to ceiling proceedings at any stage, suit property stood vested in State, free from all encumbrances. Belated challenge to same is meritless. Having failed to avail of remedies under Urban Land Ceiling Act and one resorted to resulted in rejection of claim made therein upto this Court, Respondent Nos.1 to 7/ Plaintiffs sought to start a fresh round of litigation by filing a Civil Suit, which was barred under the Act. Furthermore, State after acquiring ownership over suit land has allotted suit land to the M/s Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals on a 30 years lease. Situation has now become irreversible.
       Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. C.A. Nos.10629-10631 of 2014 are filed by the Competent Authority against the Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2013 in F.A. No. 202/2008, Judgment and Order dated 24.07.2014 in the Review Petition being RVW No. 36/2014 with CAN No.1450/2014 in F.A. No.202/2008 passed by the High Court at Calcutta.

2. C.A. Nos.9829-9830 of 2016 are filed by M/s Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals Ltd. against the judgment and order dated 27.09.2013 in F.A. No.202/2008 with CAN No.1054/2014 and C.A. No. 9900/2016 against the judgment and order dated 24.07.2014 in RVW No.117/2014 in F.A. No.202/2008 passed by the High Court at Calcutta.

3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in these appeals, it is necessary to set out the facts in detail, which led to filing of these appeals. The facts set out hereinbelow are taken from the list of dates filed by the parties.

4. Appellant No.1 herein is the Competent Authority, Calcutta-Defendant No.3, Appellant No.2 is the State of West Bengal-Defendant No. 2, whereas Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 herein are Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 7, Respondent No. 8 is Defendant No.1 and Respondent No. 9 is Defendant No. 2 in the Civil Suit out of which these appeals arise.

5. The dispute pertains to land bearing No.73, holding No.42, Canal Circular Road, Calcutta 700 054 measuring around 2 bighas, 2 katas, 4 chataks and 25 sq. ft. (which is a part of and adjacent to a bigger chunk of land measuring around 29 bighas) (hereinafter referred to as “suit property”).

6. One Abdul Jabbar claimed to have purchased the suit property on 29.07.1919 in an auction sale. He, in turn, claimed to have sold it to one Maula Ataul Haq on 29.09.1927 who, in turn, is alleged to have sold it to one Poonam Chand Sethia on 15.08.1933.

7. Mr. Poonam Chand Sethia, in turn, on 17.08.1933 claimed to have transferred the suit property to one Moti Chand Nakhat, Amrito Lal Shah, Thakur Lal Mehta and Champa Lal Daphtary, being the trustees of a Trust who, in turn, claimed to have transferred it to one Mr. P.S. Mantosh the predecessor-in-interest of the original Plaintiff, who is now represented by his legal representatives (Respondent Nos. 1 to 7).

8. It may be mentioned here that after 1933 till 30.11.1962, the suit property went through several transfers between various parties. It was also the subject matter of civil and criminal proceedings between the parties, who claimed to have possessed the suit property. We, however, do not consider it necessary to set out these details here.

9. Suffice it to say, that eventually the suit property along with its adjacent land bearing Nos.73, 60, 72, etc. came into the hands of Mr. Monilal Goyee and Mr. Bijay Kumar Goyee who, in turn, claimed to have sold it to M/s Hindustan Housing on 15.06.1957. M/s Hindustan Housing, in turn, transferred the suit property along with adjacent land to M/s Orient Beverage Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “M/s OBL”) vide registered sale deed dated 30.11.1962.

10. On 17.02.1976, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) came into force. It was extended to the State of West Bengal on the same day. The suit property alongwith the adjacent land was an “urban land” under Section 2(o) of this Act, and was falling under urban agglomeration as defined by Section 2(n) of the Act.

11. M/s OBL claiming to be a “person” under Section 2(i) of the Act, and claiming “to hold” the suit property under Section 2(l) of the Act in excess of the ceiling limits specified under Section 4 of the Act filed a statement on 15.09.1976 under Section 6(1) of the Act before the Competent Authority.

12. It may be mentioned here that in the statement M/s OBL showed the suit property as a vacant land, and prayed that they be allowed to hold the excess vacant land for constructing the dwelling houses thereon under Section 21 of the Act.

13. The Competent Authority by order dated 27.09.1988, however, rejected the prayer made by M/s OBL. The rejection resu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 213

IMPORTANT POINTJurisdiction of Civil Courts to try civil suits with respect to lands which are subjected to ceiling proceedings under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, are barred.

IMPORTANT POINT
Jurisdiction of Civil Courts to try civil suits with respect to lands which are subjected to ceiling proceedings under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, are barred.