DHRUV GREEN FIELD LTD. versus HUKAM SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 449 · Decided: 05-08-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
i 
-1 
' 
DHRUV GREEN FIELD LTD. 
A 
~ 
HUKAM SINGH AND ORS. 
AUGUST 5, 2002 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
B 
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961-Section 13 
read with Section I DA-Jurisdiction of civil court to entertain suit challenging 
validity of lease of land granted by Panchayat-Whether barred-Held yes, C 
since validity of lease of land is required to be decided by the revenue 
officer-Jurisdiction of civil court is barred in respect of such matters. 
Respondents filed a suit challenging the validity of the lease of land 
granted by Panchayat and also the legality of auction. Trial Court dismissed 
the suit holding that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try D 
the suit However, First Appellate Court decreed the suit holding that the civil 
court has jurisdiction. Aggrieved, appellant filed second appeal which was 
dismissed. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that as the validity of the lease is required to be 
decided by the Assistant Collector of the First Grade under Section 10-A(2)(iii) E 
of the Act, the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred by Section 13 thereof. 
Respondents contended that a lease of land could be granted only for a 
period not exceeding five years under the Punjab Village Common Lands 
(Regulation) Rules, 1964 but the impugned lease was granted for ten years 
and that though the auction notice was required to be issued fifteen days prior F 
to the date of the auction, all the three notices for auction for lease of the suit 
land, were not in conformity with sub-rule (10) of Rule 6, being for a shorter 
period, as such the lease granted by the Gram Panchayat would be wholly 
illegal, void and without any legal consequence and, therefore, the civil court 
would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. From a combined reading of sub-sections (1) and (2) of 
Section 10-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 it 
is clear that any matter which raises the issue of violation of the provisions 
G 
of the Act or the Rules made thereunder including the question of lease being H 
449 
450 
SUPREME. COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. l S.C.R. 
A entered into as a result of fraud or concealment of facts or even otherwise 
detrimental to the interests of the Panchayat as prescribed, is required to be 
decided by the Assistant Collector of the First Grade. Jn view of the provisions 
of Section 13(b) in respect of any matter which any revenue court, officer or 
authority is empowered by or under this Act to determine; or Section 13(c) to 
B question the legality of any action taken or matter decided by any revenue 
court, officer or authority empowered to do so under the Act, the jurisdiction 
of the civil court to entertain and adjudicating such questions is clearly barred. 
(457-B-D; 454-E, F] 
1.2. Jn the instant case, High Court erred in upholding the order of the 
C First Appellate Court that the Civil court has jurisdiction to entertain and 
adjudicate the said questions in the suit. Thus, the order of High Court is.set 
aside. However, this will not preclude the respondents-plaintiffs from seeking 
redressal from appropriate authority under the Act. [457-E, F] 
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the grant of impugned 
D lease might be termed as illegal but it cannot be said to be nullity. [457-D] 
Mis. Kama/'a Mills Ltd. v. State of Bombay, AIR (1965) SC 1942 and 
Lala Ram Swarup and Ors. v. Shikar Chand and Anr., (1966) 2 SCR 553, 
referred to. 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4565 of2002. 
F 
G 
H 
From the Judgement and Order dated 16.8.2001 of the High Court of 
Punjab and Haryana in S.A.O. 28/2000. 
Manoj Swarup and Hiren Dasan for the Appellant. 
Avijit Bhattacharjee, Vijay Sharma and Atanu Saikia for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered 
SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI J. Heard the learned counsel for 
the parties. 
Leave is granted. 
The judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of 
• 
This Act was made applicable to the State of Haryana by the Haryana Adaptation of 
Laws (State and Concurrent Subjects), Order, 1968. 
-
(.----
' t.-
r 
l ,,_ 
-1 
' 
DHRUV GREEN FIELD v. HUKAM SINGH [SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUAD RI, I.] 45 J 
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in S.A.0. No.28 of2000, made on August A 
J 6, 200 I, is assailed in this appeal filed by the first defendant in the suit. 
The short question th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.