HATTI versus SUNDER SINGH

Citation: [1971] 2 S.C.R. 163 · Decided: 11-09-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
HAITI 
v. 
SlJ.NDER SINGH 
September 11, 1970 
[S. M. S!KRI AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.] 
163 
Civil Court-Exclueion of Jurisdiction-Delhi Land Reforms Act, 
1954-Sections 84, 185, 186 and item 4 of First Schedule-Jurisdiction of 
Revenue Court-Suit to establish Bhumidari righr if competent-Civil 
Court's competence to decide title in proceedings under First Schedule. 
Under s. 13 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 the appellant a 
tenant was declared bhumidhar of land belonging to the respondent. The 
respondent filecl a suit in the Civil Court claiming that the bhumidhari 
issued to the appellant was illegal, that he should instead be declared the 
bhumidhar and prayed for possession of the land. Apart from the issues 
on merits, the appellant raised the issue that the Civil Court had 
no 
jurisdiction to entert•in the suit in yiew of tho bar in s. 185 of the Act. 
The trial court held that the jurisdiction of civil court wa. not barred, and 
decreed the suit. The decree was upheld in appeal by the District Judge, 
and, in second appeal, by a single Judge of the High Court. 
The 
Letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed. Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD': .(i) The reliefs claimed by the respondent were within the 
competent jurisdiction of the Revenue Assistant and the Civil Court had 
no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 
Under s. 84 the right to institute a 
suit for possession was granted only to a bhu1nidar: or an asanii, or the 
gaon sahha. 
The Act envisaged 
only these three 
classes of persons 
who would possess rights in agricultural land after ,the commencement 
of the Act. Proprietors as such having ceased to exist, could not, there-
fore, in-stitute a suit for possession. This aspect of the case has been Jost 
sight of by the High Court and the lo\\'er courts. because it appears that 
their attention was not drawn to the provision of s. 154 of the Act, under 
which all l_ands of proprietors, other than those comprised in their hold-
ings, vested in the gaon sabha, thus extinguishing their proprietary rights. 
(167 G-HJ 
(ii.I There is 
no provision in the rules for giving notice to different 
interested parties before a declaration of bl11unidari rights is made. Any 
person, who is aggrieved by a d1!claration of bliuniidlzari right issued in 
fayour of another person can appropriately seek his remedy by moving an 
application before the Revenue Assistant under item 4 of the 
First 
Schedule, whereupon, if he succeeds, he will obtain a declaration that he 
is the Bhumidar. 
Such a c.eclaration will automatically supersede the 
declaration issued by the authorities in accordance with the Rules with-
out any adjudication of rights and without notice to interested parties 
[169 BJ 
Loi Singh v. Sardara & Anr. I.L.R. (1964] Vol. 17, 2 Pb. 428 referred 
to. 
(iii) It is true that the declarations made by the revenue authorities 
witheut going through the judicial procedure are subject to due adjudi-
cation of rights; but such adjudication must he by an application under 
item 4 of Sch. J and not by approach to the civil court. 
The jurisdiction 
of the civil court is already barred by s. 185 of the Act read with various 
items of the first Schedule (169 D-2] 
The inference contra in Lal Singh v. Sarciara & Anr. I.LR. [1964] 
vol. 17, 2 Pb. 428 disapproved. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1971] 2 S.C.R. 
(iv) Section 
186 only envisages that question of title will arise be· 
A 
fore the Revenue Courts in suits or proceedings under the first schedule 
and only if such a question arises in a competent proceeding pending· in a 
Revenue Court an issue will be framed .and referred to the civil court. 
Such a provision does not give jurisdiction to the Civil Court to entertain 
the suit itself on a question of title. [170 B-C] 
CrvrL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1228 ot 
B 
1966: 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 
December 2, 1965 of the Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench at 
Dc.'.hi in Letters Patent Api:ieal No. 57-D of 1965. 
· 
C. B. Agarwala and P. P. Juneja, for the a]Jpellant. 
c 
Sardari Lal Bhatia, D. R. Gupta and H. K. Puri, for the 
rrspondt'1Ilt. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Bhargava, J. 
The api;ellant Hatti was declared a Bhumidar 
of some land belonging to the respondent, Sunder Singh, under 
. section 13 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act No. 8 of 1954 (herein-
after referred to as "the Act"). The respondent then brought a 
suit in the

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