LexMEG RAJ (DEAD) THR. L.RS. & ORS. versus MANPHOOL(DEAD) THR. L.RS. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
MEG RAJ (DEAD) THR. L.RS. & ORS.
v.
MANPHOOL(DEAD) THR. L.RS. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.7426 of 2011)
MARCH 15, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 – s.26 – Bar of
Jurisdiction – Suit land was subjected to ceiling under the Act and
the prescribed authority had passed an order in relation to the suit
land – Two civil suits were filed by the two sets of persons claiming
interest in the suit land – High Court held that both civil suits were
barred and thus, were not triable by the civil court in the light of
express bar contained in s.26 of the Act – Held: s.26(b) of the Act
clearly bars filing of civil suit to examine the legality of the order
passed by the prescribed authority under the Act – In other words,
the civil court’s jurisdiction is expressly taken away by s.26(b) of
the Act from examining the legality of orders under the Act – Thus,
the High Court was justified in dismissing the appellants’ suits as
being barred by virtue of the bar contained in s.26 of the Act –
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.9.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court was justified in holding that both
the civil suits were barred and thus were not triable by the Civil
Court in the light of express bar contained in Section 26 of the
Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. [Para 17] [4-E]
2. Mere perusal of the plaint in both the civil suits would
go to show that the plaintiffs (appellants) had challenged therein
the legality of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority under
the Act and prayed that the order be declared null and void.
[Para 18] [5-A-B]
3. Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 provides
that the Courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature
excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or
impliedly barred. [Para 19] [5-B-C]
[2019] 5 S.C.R. 1
1
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 5 S.C.R.
4. Section 26 (b) of the Act clearly bars filing of civil suit to
examine the legality of the order passed by the Prescribed
Authority under the Act. In other words, the Civil Court’s
jurisdiction is expressly taken away by Section 26(b) of the Act
from examining the legality of orders passed under the Act. The
remedy of the plaintiffs in such case lies in filing appeal/revision
under Section 18 of the Act against the order of the Prescribed
Authority. [Para 20] [5-C-D]
Dhulabhai v. State of M.P. AIR 1969 SC 78 :
[1968] 3 SCR 662 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1968] 3 SCR 662
referred to
Para 20
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7426
of 2011.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.01.2008 of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 40 of 1984
With
Civil Appeal No. 3145 of 2019.
Ms. Manju Jetley, Adv. for the Appellants.
K. K. Mohan, Dr. Monika Gusain, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted in S.L.P.(c)
No.9723/2009.
2. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order
dated 28.01.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at
Chandigarh in R.S.A. Nos.40/1984 & 2712/1987 whereby the High Court
dismissed R.S.A. No.40 of 1984 and allowed R.S.A. No.2712 of 1987.
3. A few facts need mention for the disposal of these appeals,
which involve a short point. The facts are taken from R.S.A. No.40/
1984 which arose out of C.S. No.24-C/1979.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
3
4. The appellants are the legal representatives of the original
plaintiffs and the respondents are the legal representatives of original
defendants in the Civil suit No.24-C/1979 & Civil Suit No.62-C/1979
out of which these appeals arise.
5. The dispute relates to 4/5th share in the land measuring 643
Bighas and 4 Biswas situated in village Umedpura, District Sirsa, State
of Haryana (hereinafter referred to as “the suit land”). The suit land
was subjected to ceiling proceedings under the Haryana Ceiling on Land
Holdings Act, 1972 (for short, “the Act”) wherein the Prescribed Authority
had passed an order dated 17.10.1978 in relation to the suit land.
6. This led to filing of two civil suits by two sets of persons claiming
interest in the suit land. One civil suit was C.S. No. 24-C of 1979 and
other was C.S. No. 62-C of 1979.
7. So far as C.S. No. 24-C of 1979 is concerned, it was filed by
the plaintiffs in the Court of Sub-Judge III Class, Sirsa, against the
defendants. In thExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.