DOLHIN PADHARO DEVI versus INDRAJEET TIWARY & ANR

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 241 · Decided: 31-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
[2008) 2 S.C.R. 241 
DOLHIN PADHARO DEVI 
A 
II. 
INDRAJEET TIWARY & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 1609-10 of 2001) 
JANUARY 31, 2008 
g, 
~ 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
' 
., 
Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and 
Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 - s. 43 - Ceiling 
proceedings -
challenged in writ petition questioning c 
jurisdiction of the authorities concerned - Dismissal of -
Subsequent suit for declaration that order of ceiling authorities 
was without jurisdiction - Maintainability of the suit - Held: In 
view of the fact that the ceiling authorities had the jurisdiction 
to decide the dispute raised and the plea of jurisdiction was D 
discussed in earlier writ petition, the suit is barred in terms of 
s. 43 . 
.,..~ 
Jurisdiction - Of civil court - Exclusion of - By statutory 
provision - held: Such bar cannot operate in cases where the 
plea raised before civil court goes to the root of the matter and E 
if upheld lead to conclude the impugned.order a nullity. 
Ceiling court passed an order in respect of 
applications u/s 16 (3) of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of 
Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961. 
..... 
The same was unsuccessfully challenged by the F 
appellant, in writ petition before High Court wherein issue 
relating to jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act was 
also raised. Thereafter, the appellant filed a Title Suit for 
declaration that the orders passed by the Ceiling Court 
were without jurisdiction and were not binding on the G 
' 
~ 
appellant (purchaser). Respondent No.1-defendant filed 
objection regarding maintainability of the suit in view of 
the bar in terms of s. 43 of the Act. The objection was 
rejected. In Civil Revision, High Court allowed the 
241 
H 
.--L 
242 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 2 S. C.R. 
A objection. Review against the order of High Court was 
also dismissed. Hence the present appeals. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The jurisdiction of the civil appeal to deal 
B with civil right can be .excluded by legislature, but the 
statutory provision in this regard must be express and 
clear. The bar created under the relevant provisions of a 
.... 
·' 
statute excluding the jurisdiction of the civil court cannot 
however operate in cases where the plea raised before 
c the civil court goes to the root of the matter and could, if 
upheld, lead to the conclusion that the impugned order is 
a nullity. If the proceedings of the orders passed are 
completely without jurisdiction then the bar to the 
maintainability to the suit in the ordinary civil court would 
D not apply. [Para 6] [245-8, C, D] 
2. The High Court noted that a plain reading of 
Section 43 of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area 
~~ 
and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 shows that 
while a suit is not maintainable against an order passed 
E under the Act, the jurisdiction of the authority passing such 
order can be decided by a civil court. Since the High Court 
observed that it is not in dispute that the authorities who 
passed the order in the ceiling cases and/ or appeal 
petitions had such jurisdiction to decide the dispute raised 
F under s. 16(3) of the Ceiling Act and since the issue relating 
.).. 
to such jurisdiction was also raised by the plaintiff in his 
earlier writ petitions, which were rejected by this court~ 
the High Court was right in holding that the title suit filed 
by the present appellant was not maintainable in terms of 
G s.43 of the Act. [Para's 6 and 7] [245-E, F, G; 246-A] 
Ram Swarup and Ors. v. Shikar Chand and Anr. AIR 1966 
,.. 
, 
SC 893 - relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 
H 1609-10 of 2001. 
DOLHIN PADHARO DEVI v. INDRAJEET TIWARY 
243 
& ANR. [PASAYAT, J.] 
From the final Order and 'Judgment dated 28.4.1997 and A 
11.12.1998 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Civil 
Revision No. 1297/1993 and Civil Review No. 155/1997 
respectively. 
Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Sudhanshu Saran and Shefali 8 
Jain for the Appellant. 
Manish Mohan, Umang Shankar, Pankaj Prakash, 
Sandeep Chaturvedi and Ugra Shankar Prasad for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in these appeals is 
to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Patna 
High Court dismissing the Civil Revision filed and the order in 
c 
the Review Petition. Before the High Court challenge was to D 
the order passed by learned Munsif, Bikramg

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