DEVINDER SINGH AND ORS versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 218 · Decided: 04-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DEVINDER SINGH AND ORS 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. 
JULY 4, 2006 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
Land Reforms: 
Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972-Sections 14, 18 & 26-
C Authorities concerned passed orders of allotment and declaration of surplus 
area in respect of land in dispute-Civil suit filed by Appellants for declaration 
that they were owners in possession of the said land and that orders of allotment 
and declaration of surplus area were null and void and not binding on their 
rights-Maintainability of the suit --Held: Not maintainable since controversy 
D involved in the suit could be resolved by forum provided under the Act itself-
Jurisdiction of Civil Court was excluded-Punjab Security of Land Tenures 
Act--Section 25A(ii)-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 9. 
The authorities concerned passed orders of allotment and declaration 
of surplus area in respect of the land in dispute. Appellants filed civil suit 
E for declaration that they were owners in possession of the said land and 
that the orders of allotment and declaration of surplus area were 
ineffective, inoperative, against principles of natural justice, null and void 
and as such not binding oni the rights of the Appellants. 
The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal is 
F whether the suit was liable to be dismissed as not maintainable being 
barred under Section 26 oif the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 
1972. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: Even when the statute has given finality to the orders of the 
special tribunal, the Civil Court's jurisdiction can be regarded as having 
been excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the Civil Court 
would normally do in a suit. Section 26(l)(d) on the other hand specifically 
excludes jurisdiction of the Civil Court so far as matters which are 
H 
218 
DEVINDER SINGH v. STATEOFHARYANA [PASAYAT,J.] 
219 
required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Financial A 
Commissioner, the Commissioner, Collector or prescribed Authority. The 
entitlement, choice of land and the allotment are matters which are to be 
dealt with specifically by the authorities under the Act. Additionally, 
Section 18 provides a forum to ventilate the grievances under the Act in 
respect of several matters. This is a case of exclusion of the remedy in B 
certain contingencies. It is not a case where the controversy cannot be 
resolved by the forum provided under the Act. Further in case of any 
grievance, the validity of the order could have been questioned before the 
forum provided. That has not been done and on the other hand, the suit 
was filed after about nine years. [227-C-E) 
State of Tamil Nadu v. Ramalinga Samigal Madam, [1985) 4 SCC 10, 
relied on. 
Richpal Singh and Ors. v. Dalip, (1987) 4 SCC 410, referred to. 
c 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4552 of2000. D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.1 I .1998 of the High Court of 
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 3590/1997. 
Jitendra Sharma, A.S. Nehra, Devender Verma, P.N. Jha and Shekhar 
Prit Jha for the Appellants. 
E 
B.S. Malik, Manjit Singh, Harikesh Singh and T.V. George for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. Appellants call in question legality of the F 
judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana 
High Court dismissing the second appeal filed by the appellants. 
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
Appellants filed suit for declaration on 7.9.1991 to the effect that they G 
are the owners in possession of Yi share of the land measuring 155 kanals 4 
marlas as per jamabandi for the year 1983-84 situated in village Kairanwali, 
Tehsil and District Sirsa and the order of allotment and declaration of surplus 
area so far as the said land is concerned are ineffective, inoperative and 
against the principles of natural justice, null and void and as such not binding H 
220 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A on the rights of the plaintiffs. The suit was decreed by learned Senior Sub 
Judge, Sirsa in Civil Suit No. I 054 of 1989. Respondents filed an appeal 
before the District Judge. The appeal was assigned to learned Additional 
District Judge who by his judgment and decree dated 14. l 0.1997 set aside 
the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit. A second 
appeal was carried before the High Court which by the impugned judgment 
B dismis

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.