GOPAL SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. versus SWARAN SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1131 · Decided: 07-12-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1131
GOPAL SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS.
v.
SWARAN SINGH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 11930 of 2018)
DECEMBER 07, 2018
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976: s. 16
– Bar of jurisdiction and finality of orders – On facts, alienation of
the land, sold under restricted auction – Proceedings for resumption
of the land, allowed by the Authority and the said order set aside by
the High Court – Thereafter, order by the Deputy Commissioner
that cancellation of the auction was proper and confirmed the
allotment made in favour of the appellants – Said order attained
finality – Thereafter, suit by respondents seeking declaration that
they are bonafide purchasers – Trial court decreed the suit holding
that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was null and
void – In appeal, the first appellate court set aside the order of the
trial court – However, the High Court restored the order of the trial
court – On appeal, held: Every order made by any officer or
authority under the Act is final and no civil court shall have
jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding and no injunction
shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any
action taken under provisions of the Act – First appellate court, by
applying s. 16, held that the suit is barred and is not maintainable
against the State and its authorities, without issuing notice u/s. 80
CPC, also no leave was sought from the court for dispensing with
issuance of notice as provided u/s. 80(2) CPC – High Court did not
deal with the said aspect – When the suit itself is barred, it is not
open for the civil court to record any finding on the validity of the
order passed by the Deputy Commissioner – Respondent-plaintiffs
had an opportunity before the authority and when the said order
has become final, in view of the bar u/s. 16, the High Court committed
error in recording finding on the validity of the order passed by the
Deputy Commissioner – Thus, the order passed by the High Court
is set aside.
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 1131
1131
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1132                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Every order made by any officer or authority
under the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976
is final and no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any
suit or proceeding and no injunction shall be granted by any court
or other authority in respect of any action taken under provisions
of the Act. The first appellate court, by applying Section 16, has
clearly recorded a finding that the suit is barred and further it
was also held that suit is not maintainable against the State and
its authorities, who are defendant nos.1 to 4, without issuing notice
under Section 80 CPC. There is also nothing on record seeking
leave from the court for dispensing with issuance of notice as
provided under Section 80(2) CPC. The said aspect is not at all
dealt by the High Court. So far as the bar of the suit under Section
16 is concerned, the High Court referred to Special Leave
Petition, but, it appears that the said petition is dismissed for
non-prosecution. High Court also referred to certain other earlier
judgments to support a finding on the validity of the order dated
28.03.1985, passed by the Deputy Commissioner. But when the
suit itself is barred, it is not open for the civil court to record
any finding on the validity of the order dated 28.03.1985.
[Para 13][1136-F-H; 1137-A-C]
1.2 The respondent-plaintiffs had an opportunity before the
authority and when the said order has become final, in view of
the bar under Section 16 of the Act, the High Court has committed
error in recording finding on the validity of the order dated
28.03.1985. Further, the appellate court also has not disturbed
the finding of the lower appellate court on issue of notice as
contemplated under Section 80 CPC. Thus, the judgment and
order passed by the High Court is set aside and thus, the suit is
dismissed. [Para 13, 14][1137-C-E]
State of Haryana & Ors. v. Vinod Kumar & Ors. 1986
(1) PLR 222 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
1986 (1) PLR 222
referred to
Para 13
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1133
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11930
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.02.2018 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 1163 of 1991.
Neeraj Jain Sr. Adv., Vikas Mahajan, Vinod Sharma,
Vishal Mahajan, Anil Kumar, H. S. Saini, Surinder Kuma

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