STATE OF M.P. & ANR. versus DUNGAJI (D) BY LRS. & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 9 S.C.R. 979 · Decided: 16-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
979
STATE OF M.P. & ANR.
v.
DUNGAJI (D) BY LRS. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No.11326 of 2011)
JULY 16, 2011
[M.R. SHAH AND A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960:
s. 46 – Competent Authority while determining surplus land
of the plaintiff, included the land inherited by his wife from her
mother – Suit by plaintiff against the State challenging order of
Competent Authority and also against his wife seeking declaration
that the marriage between them was already dissolved by way of
customary divorce and hence land of her wife could not have been
considered for determining his surplus land – Suit dismissed by
trial court as well as first appellate court – High Court, in second
appeal, decreed the suit – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: In view
of s. 46 there was a complete bar against maintainability of the suit
before civil court challenging the decision of Competent Authority–
However, the suit qua his wife seeking declaration for divorce was
maintainable – The trial as well as first appellate court in their
concurrent finding disbelieved the customary divorce – Therefore,
High Court, in exercise of powers u/s. 100 CPC, was not justified
in interfering with the concurrent finding of facts and thus exceeded
its jurisdiction – Even on merits, the plaintiff failed to prove the
customary divorce – Plaintiff had come out with the case of
customary divorce only with a view to get out of the provisions of
the Act – Suit is liable to be dismissed – Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 – s. 100.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. By Order dated 18.05.1976 and after following
due procedure required to be followed under the provisions of
Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960, the
Competent Authority declared 57.32 acres of land as surplus land
under the provisions of the Act 1960. As wife of the plaintiff had
inherited 19.89 hectares of land from her mother, therefore, as
[2019]  9 S.C.R. 979
979
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
980
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
such, she became the absolute owner of the aforesaid land. As
per the provisions of the Act, the land held by the wife was
required to be included in the holding of the family of the husband.
Therefore, the Competent Authority included 19.89 hectares of
land in the holding of the family of the plaintiff and consequently
by Order dated 18.05.1976 declared 57.32 acres of land as surplus
land. [Para 7] [990-C-D]
2. The Order passed by the Competent Authority declaring
the land as surplus land is subject to appeal and further revision
as provided under the Act 1960 (Section 41 and 42 of the Act
1960). Section 46 of the Act 1960 provides that no Civil Court
has jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which
is by or under the Act 1960 required to be settled, decided or
dealt with by the Competent Authority. Therefore, as per Section
46 of the Act 1960 there shall be a complete bar against
maintainability of the suit challenging the decision of the
Competent Authority. Despite the above and without preferring
any appeal/revision as provided under the Act 1960 challenging
the Order passed by the Competent Authority dated 18.05.1976,
the plaintiff filed the suit before the Civil Court praying for a
declaration to declare the Order dated 18.05.1976 of the
Competent Authority as null and void.  It is true that in the suit
the plaintiff also prayed for declaration to declare that the divorce
had taken place between him and his wife on the basis of the
customary procedure. Therefore, as such, the suit qua the same
relief can be said to be maintainable. But certainly, the suit
challenging the Order passed by the Competent Authority dated
18.05.1976 was not maintainable at all.  Therefore, in the facts
and circumstances of the case, the High Court has materially
erred in quashing and setting aside the Order dated 18.05.1976
passed by the Competent Authority. [Para 7] [990-E-H;
991-A-C]
Sooraj v. SDO (1995) 2 SCC 45 : [1994] 5 Suppl. SCR
686; Mohanlal NanbhaiChoksi (Dead) by LRs. v. State
of Gujarat  (2010) 12 SCC 726 : [2010] 12 SCR
499  – relied on.
Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1969 SC
78 : [1968] SCR 662 – distinguished.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
981
Union of India v. Shri Kant Sharma (2015) 6 SCC
773 : [2015] 4 SCR 676;  Swapnanjali Sandeep Patil
v. Sandeep Ananda Patil (2019) SCC Online SC 329;
Subramani v. M. Chandralekha (2005) 9 SCC 407:
[2004] 6 Suppl. SCR 285; Yamanaji J. Jadhav v. Nirmala
(2002) 2 SCC 63

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