POORAN SINGH versus DHANIRAM (SINCE DEAD) THR. LEGAL HEIRS AND ANR.

Citation: [2019] 5 S.C.R. 202 · Decided: 14-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
202
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 5 S.C.R.
    POORAN SINGH
v.
DHANIRAM (SINCE DEAD) THR. LEGAL HEIRS AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 3122 of  2019)
MARCH 14, 2019
              [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
  HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 – ss.170B and 257 –
Predecessor-in-interest of the appellant  executed a sale deed of
suit property in favour of Predecessor-in-interest of respondent –
Thereafter,  predecessor-in-interest of appellant initiated
proceedings for reversion of land  u/s. 170B – Collector directed
the reversion of the land in favour of predecessor-in-interest of
appellant – Predecessor-in-interest of respondent initiated writ
proceedings challenging the order of the collector u/s.170B –
Petition was dismissed by the High Court – Possession was restored
to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant – Thereafter,
predecessor-in-interest of the respondent filed a suit against the
appellant seeking a permanent injunction, possession and a
declaration that the order of the collector was null and void – Suit
rejected by the Trial Court – However, in a first appeal, the order of
the Trial Court  was set aside – Second appeal filed by the appellant
was dismissed – On appeal, held: The order of the Collector was
placed in issue before the High Court in writ proceedings – That
judgment of the High Court indicated that the challenge was on the
ground that the notice of the appeal before the Collector was not
served on the original respondent – High Court had enquired into
the legality of the order passed by the Collector and dismissed the
writ petition – Once the order of the Collector was affirmed in the
final judgment and order of the High Court in writ proceedings, it
was not open to a civil court to arrive at a conclusion to the contrary
– High Court in second appeal erred in ignoring the effect of the
earlier order in writ proceedings – Thus, judgment of the Trial Court
dismissing the civil suit restored.
      [2019] 5 S.C.R. 202
  202
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
203
The Predecessor-in-interest of appellant executed a sale
deed of the suit property in favour of predecessor-in-interest of
respondent. On 24 October, 1980 section 170B was inserted into
the provisions of the MP Land Revenue Code 1959 by MP Act
15 of 1980. Pursuant thereto, predecessor-in-interest of appellant
initiated proceeding u/s.170B of the code, which was ordered in
his favour. Writ petition challenging the said order in was
dismissed. Thereafter, predecessor-in-interest of respondent filed
suit to declare the said order u/s. 170B as null and void, which
was also dismissed by the Trial Court. However, in the first appeal
order of the Trial Court was set aside. The second appeal filed by
the appellant was dismissed. Hence, present Special Leave
Petition.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The basic issue which falls for consideration is
whether it was open to the respondent to institute a suit to
challenge the order passed by the Collector, when an earlier
challenge to the legality of the order had culminated in the final
judgment of the High Court in writ proceedings on 16 February
1987.  The answer to that issue must lie in the negative.  The
order of the Collector was placed in issue before the High Court
in writ proceedings.  The order which has been extracted in the
earlier part of the judgment indicates that the challenge was on
the ground that the notice of the appeal before the Collector had
not been served on the original respondent.  The judgment of
the High Court enquired into the legality of the order passed by
the Collector. The High Court came to the conclusion that the
order was in accordance with law.  The writ petition was dismissed.
Once the order of the Collector was affirmed in the final judgment
and order of the High Court dated 16 February 1987, it was not
open to a civil court to arrive at a conclusion to the contrary.  The
High Court, in second appeal has manifestly erred in ignoring
the clear effect of the earlier order dated 16 February 1987.
[Para 13] [209-C-E]
   POORAN SINGH  v. DHANIRAM (SINCE DEAD) THR.
LEGAL HEIRS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
204
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 5 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.3122 of
2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.02.2015 of the High Court
of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in SA No..2 of 1998.
Praveen Chaturvedi, Nitin Bhardwaj, Ms. Jyoti Chaturvedi,
Ms. A. Mishra, Advs. for the Appellant.
Aniruddha P. Mayee, J.P. Mishra, Shankar Divate,

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