LexHARPAL SINGH versus ASHOK KUMAR & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 14 S.C.R. 107 HARPAL SINGH v. ASHOK KUMAR & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 22967of2017) DECEMBER 15,2017 [DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND · DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.) A B Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 - s.185 - Bar under - When attracted- Held: To be 'land' for the purpose of ibe 1954 Act, the C land must be held or occupied for purposes contemplated under the Act - Where the land is not used for any such purpose and has been built upon, it would cease to be agricultural land - And once the agricultural land loses its basic character and is converted into authorized/unauthorized colonies, disputes of plot holders cannot be decided by the revenue authorities and would have to be resolved D by the civil court - Thus, the bar uls.185 would not be attracted - In the instant case, respondents had filed suit for possession uls.6 of the Specific Relief Act - However, the land in question had ceased to be agricultural in nature and thus, was not governed by the 1954 Act - Resultantly, the bar uls.185 was not attracted - Objection E raised by appellant to execution of the decree was without foundation - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - s.6. Decree - Challenge to, before executing court - Ground for - Held: Validity of a decree can be challenged before an executing court only on the ground of inherent lack of jurisdiction which renders the decree a nullity. Respondents-plaintiffs filed suit for possession against the appellant under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The F suit was decreed ex-parte by trial court. Respondents initiated proceedings for execution of the decree. The appellant filed objection on the ground that since the suit land was agricultural G land, hence a civil suit was barred under Section 185 ofthe Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. The objection was dismissed by the executing court. The appellant challenged the said order of the executing court before High Court by filing petition under Article 227, which was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal. H 107 108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R. A Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD:l.1 The position of law is that where the land has not been used for any purpose contemplated under the Land Reforms Act, 1954 and has been built upon, it would cease to be agricultural land. Once agricultural land loses its basic character B and has been converted into authorized/u·nauthorized colonies by dividing it into plots, disputes of plot holders cannot be decided by the revenue authorities and would have to be resolved by the civil court. The bar under Section 185 of the Act would not be attracted. (Para 6) [112-B-C) c 1.2 In the present case, the finding of fact which was arrived at by the executing Court in the course of its decision on the objection to execution is that the land had ceased to be agricultural land and was not being used for purposes contemplated under the 1954 Act. The said findings have not been squarely challenged in these proceedings. Hence, it cannot be held that the decree of D the trial court was a nullity. The land was not governed, as a result, by the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 since it was not agricultural and thus, the bar under Section 185 was not attracted. [Paras 8, 9) (113-F-G; 114-E, F) 1.3 The validity of a decree can be challenged before an E executing court only on the gorund of an inherent lack of jurisdiction which renders the decree a nullity. In the present case, there was no inherent lack of jurisdiction and the objection to the execution of the decree was without foundation. [Paras 7, 9) [112-C; 114-F] F G H Hira Lal Patni v. Sri Kali Nath [1962) 2 SCR 747 - relied on. Ram Lubbaya Kapoor v. JR Chawla and others 1986 RLR 432; Narain Singh and Anr v. Financial Commissioner (2008) 105 DRJ 122; Neelima Gupta and Ors i~ Yogesh Saroha and Ors. 156 (2009) DLT 129 ; Anand J Datwani v. Ms Geeti Bhagat Datwani and Ors. (2013 (137) DRJ 146 ; Sunder Dass v. Ram Prakash (1977) 2 SCC 662 : (1977) 3 SCR 60 ; Gaon Sabha v Nathi (2004) 12 sec. 555 : (20041 3 SCR 354 - referred to. . HARPAL SINGH v. ASHOKKUMAR &ANR.. 109 Case Law Reference 1986 RLR 432 referred to Paras (2008) lOS DRJ 122 referred to Paras 1S6 (2009) DLT 129 referred to Para5 (2013 (137) DRJ 146 referred to Paras [1962] 2 S~R 747 r:elied on Para7 [1977] 3 SCR 60 referred to Para7 [2004] 3 SCR 3S4 referred to Para7 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.