SANKALCHAN JAYCHANDBHAI PATEL AND ORS. versus VITHALBHAI JAYCHANDBHAI PATEL AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 333 · Decided: 13-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

SANKALCHAN JAYCHANDBHAI PA'FEL AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
VITHALBHAI JAYCHANDBHAI PATEL AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 13, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTAN~ JJ.] 
B 
Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act : 
Section I I-Whether a bar to entertaining a civil suit-Held, there is a 
prohibition on the Civil Court to entertain any suit against the Government C 
on account of any act or omission of any Revenue Officer-But there is no 
prohibition on private pa1ties inter se to avail of the remedy of the suit 
provided under CPC-Hence Civil Suit is maintainable-Code of Civil Pro-. 
cedure-:-Section 9. 
·CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 12808-09 D 
of 1996. 
From the Judgment and order dated 30.6.95 of the Gujarat High 
·Court in M.C.A. No. 656 of 1995. 
Yashank Adharya, Braj K. Misra and Ejaz Maqbool for the Appel-
E 
lants. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the learned 
single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat, originally made on March 23, 
1995 in Order No. 40/95 and in MCA No. 656/95 on June 30, 1995. 
F 
The facts are fairly not in dispute. The admitted position is that the G 
appellant and the respondent had jointly purchased the suit schedule 
property. It would appear that there was a partition between them as 
co-owners on March 20, 1982. Subsequently, it would appear that mutation 
was effected in the revenue record on July 21, 1982 to the extent of the 
property that had fallen to the share of the appellant who claims to have 
a further effected partition between the appellant and his children on July H 
333 
334 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 24, 1986. It is the case of the appellant th.at the respondent filed an appeal 
under Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act which was 
dismissed by the appellate Court on March 9, 1994. Without availing of the 
further right of revision as provided thereunder, he filed the civil suit in 
the Court seeking declaration of his title to the property anq perpetual 
B injunction. Initially, the trial Court refused to grant injunction. But, on 
appeal, the District Judge had granted injunction pendi11g the suit restrain-
ing the appellant from alienating the property. The revision was dismissed 
by the High Court. Review petition was also dismissed. Thus, these appeals 
by special leave. 
C 
The primary question raised by Mr. Yashank Adharyu, learned 
counsel for the appellant, is that Section 11 is a bar on entertaining the 
suit. The High Court, therefore, was not right in restraining the appellant 
from alienating the property without deciding jurisdiction issue, i.e., 
whether the suit itselfis maintainable. In support thereof, he placed strong 
. reliance on a judgment of a single Judge of the Gujarat High Court in 
D Rukmanibai v. The State of Gujarat, (1960) 1 GLR 1791. The question, 
therefore, is : whether Section 11 is a bar for maintainability of the suit? It 
is seen that the bar of Section 37 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code would 
be only as against the lands vesting in or befonging to the State. Therefore, 
it has not relevance to the inter se claims of the private parties. The High 
E Court, therefore, was not right in relying on Section 37. 
F 
G 
Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act reads as under: 
"11. Suits not to be entertained unless plaintiff has exhausted right 
of appeal. - No Civil Court shall entertain any suit (against the 
Government) on account of any act or omission of any Revenue 
Officer Unless the plaintiff first proves that previously to bring his 
suits he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the 
time being in force, a within the period of limitation allowed for 
bringing such suits it was possible to present." 
A reading of the section would clearly indicate that there is a 
prohibition on the civil Court to entertain any suit against the Government, 
no account of any act or omission of any Revenue Officer, unless the 
plaintiff first proves that he previously brought it by way of an appeal 
before the competent authority and within the time prescribed. Without 
H availing of that remedy, he cannot present the suit against the State. The 
SJ.PATELv. VJ.PATEL 
335 
question is : whether Section 11 applies to the inter se claim of the private A 
parties? It would be seen that learned single Judge has construed Section 
11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, and concluded that Section 
11 prohibits enterta

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