THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY CALCUTTA, UNDER THE LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT, 1976 AND ANR. versus DAVID MANTOSH & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 4 S.C.R. 331 · Decided: 26-02-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
331
THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY CALCUTTA, UNDER THE
LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT, 1976 AND ANR.
v.
DAVID MANTOSH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 10629-10631 of  2014 etc.)
FEBRUARY 26, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976:
ss. 12(4), 13, 30, 33(1), 33(3), 33(4) and 40 – Land in question
subjected to ceiling proceedings under the Act – Thereafter allotted
to respondent-hospital on a long term lease of 30 years – The
Notification issued u/s. 10(3) of the Act was challenged by
respondent No. 1 – The notification was upheld by High Court and
Supreme Court – However, Supreme Court observed that it was open
to the respondent to avail any appropriate remedy – Thereupon
respondents 1 to 7 filed the present suit seeking declaration that
the proceedings under the Act which culminated in issuance of
notification u/s. 10(1) of the Act be declared  null and void and the
respondents be declared owners of the suit property – Trial court
dismissed the suit interalia holding that the suit was not maintainable
and was also barred by limitation – In appeal, High Court interalia
held that the civil court had the jurisdiction to try the suit on merits
and hence the suit was maintainable and that the plaintiffs
(respondent Nos. 1 to 7) were the owners of the suit property – On
appeal, held: The Act is a self-contained code in itself providing
complete machinery while dealing with the land-owners right in
relation to the excess land prescribed under the Act – The Act gives
finality to the orders passed by the appellate authority u/s. 33 and
also provides bar to file civil suits in relation to cases falling u/s.
30(5) and s. 40 of the Act – Therefore, jurisdiction of civil courts to
try the civil suits with respect to land which were subjected to ceiling
proceedings under the Act, are impliedly barred – The civil court
had no jurisdiction to grant the reliefs as sought in the present case
– Belated challenge to the ceiling proceedings is meritless –
Furthermore, the State after acquiring ownership of the suit property
[2019] 4  S.C.R. 331
   331
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
332
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019]  4  S.C.R.
has allotted it to the hospital on 30 years lease and hence the situation
has become irreversible – Jurisdiction.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The entire scheme of the Urban Land (Ceiling
and Regulation) Act, 1976 makes two things clear. First, the Act
is a self-contained code in itself, which provides complete
machinery while dealing with the rights of the land-owners in
relation to their lands, which are in excess of the ceiling limits
prescribed under the Act. It also provides adequate remedies to
correct all kinds of errors committed by the competent authority
under the Act; and Second, the Act gives finality to the orders
passed by the appellate authority under Section 33, and also
provides a bar to file the civil suits in relation to cases falling
under Section 30 (5) and Section 40 of the Act. [Para 50]
[348-B, C]
2. The jurisdiction of the civil court is held to be exclused
by implication to try the civil suit in question. This is for the
following reasons: First, the Act in question gives finality to the
orders passed by the appellate authority [refer to Section 33(3)].
Second, the Act provides adequate remedies in the nature of
appeals, such as first appeal to the Tribunal and second appeal to
the High Court. [refer to Sections 12 (4),  13 and 33 (1)]. Third
the Act is a complete code in itself and gives overriding powers
on other laws (refer to Section 42). Fourth, the Act expressly
excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in relation to the cases
falling under Sections 30 and 40 (refer to Section 30(5) and Section
40). Fifth, as a result of dismissal of writ petition and SLP in the
first round of litigation it was held therein that the proceedings
under the Act in question were done in conformity with the Act in
question. In the light of the aforesaid five reasons - a fortiori, the
jurisdiction of the civil court in relation to all the issues arising
under the Act is held impliedly excluded thereby satisfying all
the conditions set out in clause (1) of *Dhula Bai case. Therefore,
the jurisdiction of the civil courts to try the civil suits with respect
to the lands, which were subjected to ceiling proceedings under
the Act, are held to be impliedly barred, since the Act excludes
the jurisdiction of the civil court. [Paras 54, 55 and 56] [350-A-F

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