M/S Green Valley Samuhik Krishi ... vs Subhash And Anr.
2015 Latest Caselaw 5596 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Reserved
 
Court No. - 19
 

 
Case :- 	CIVIL REVISION No. - 69 of 2015
 

 
Revisionist :- 		M/S Green Valley Samuhik Krishi Samiti Ltd.
 
Opposite Party :- 	Subhash And Anr.
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- 	     Manish Goyal
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ajay Bhanot, Rohit Nandan Pandey, Sanjeev Kumar Pandey
 
 
 
Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 26.9.2014 passed in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 19/2003, Subhash v. M/s Green Valley Samuhik Krishi Samiti Ltd., by the court of Additional District Judge/ Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gautam Buddha Nagar, by which application 54-C of opposite party of the case was rejected.

2. In the court below, proceeding u/s 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is going on for apportionment of compensation between the parties. During said proceedings, revisionist moved the application 54-C with averment that one original suit no. 57/2001, Subhash v. Shadi Ram and others, is pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gautam Budha Nagar, which has been filed by applicant Subhash for declaring void the sale-deed executed by late Turmal in favour of M/s Green Valley Samuhik Krishi Samiti Ltd. Since matter in issue and point to be determined in present reference and aforesaid suit no. 57/2001 are same that as to whether Turmal had executed sale-deed dated 4.1.1985 in favour of opposite party Samiti or not, and since parties of the reference and original suit are common; therefore the proceeding of present reference be stayed till judgment of original suit no. 57 of 2001.

3. On application 54-C the lower court had obtained objection 58-C from opposite party, in which it was pleaded that the relief sought and dispute between present reference and original suit no. 57/2001, Subhash v. Shadi Ram and others, are not common. Original suit no. 57/2001 was instituted for cancellation of sale-deed, whereas present reference is pending for payment of compensation. This court dealing with reference has no jurisdiction to stay proceedings of any other court. Therefore the application of opposite party should be rejected.

4. After affording opportunity of hearing to parties, the court below had decided application 54-C and objection 58-C by its order dated 26.9.2014, by which said application 54-C was rejected. Aggrieved by this impugned order dated 26.9.2014, the opposite party of the land acquisition reference case had preferred present revision.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that land reference is made u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the court which adopts similar procedure as that of civil court, and section 26 of this Act provides that award of land acquisition reference is executable as a decree. Therefore, the proceeding of apportionment u/s 30 of Land Acquisition Act on reference by Collector to court is a ''decree'. He further contended that proceedings of such reference can be stayed u/s 10 C.P.C. till decision of original suit no. 57/2001, because the main question to be determined is the validity of execution of registered sale-deed by Turmal to opposite party is basis of determination of dispute between the parties in both the suits.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that it is a general law that for special enactments, if no procedure is otherwise provided, then procedure mentioned in C.P.C. will be adopted. Some times for removal or inconveniences in procedure applicability of general provisions of C.P.C. are mentioned in special enactments, but for these reason only proceedings before any other forum under any special Act cannot be treated as proceeding of the ''suit' as mentioned in C.P.C. He further contended that court below had jurisdiction to dispose of application 54-C and it cannot be said that by rejection of application 54-C it has failed to exercise its jurisdiction or had acted illegally or material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction. He further contended that mere the proceedings u/s 30 of Land Acquisition Act are not proceedings of a ''suit' and judgment of one case would not operate as res judicata for another court. Therefore, application 54-C was misconceived and court below had committed no factual or legal error while rejecting the same by impugned order, therefore, the revision should be dismissed.

7. Section 10 C.P.C. reads as under:-

"10. Stay of Suit. No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in [India] having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by [the Central Government] and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court."

8. This contention of learned counsel for the revisionist may not be incorrect that the matter in issue in land reference case before court below and in original suit no. 57/2001 pending in court of Civil Judge may directly and substantially be the same matter and they are between the same parties; but neither the lower court dealing with land acquisition reference has jurisdiction to grant relief of cancellation of sale-deed nor the court of Civil Judge has jurisdiction to pass order for apportionment of compensation regarding land acquisition. Thus, both the courts have no jurisdiction to grant relief claimed in other courts. In these circumstances, the argument regarding concurrent jurisdiction to grant relief by other court is not acceptable. The judgment of civil court for cancellation of sale-deed may have relevant evidentiary value in land reference cases but any order of apportionment of compensation after determining the validity of sale-deed in question may not affect the jurisdiction of civil court to decide the said matter on the basis of evidences adduced before it and without being influenced by finding of the court of land acquisition reference case. Therefore, this finding of the court below in impugned order is not erroneous that proceedings of section 30 of Land Acquisition Reference is different from proceedings of a civil court and this proceeding has to be decided on the basis of evidences adduced in this court. Even if the proceedings of section 30 of land acquisition case are treated to be pending before the "Court" even then, such court is different from the regular civil court and the proceedings regular civil court. There appears no factual or legal error in the impugned order.

9. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that by misinterpretation of legal provisions court below had failed to exercise its jurisdiction and also acted illegally and with material irregularity. Therefore, revision u/s 115 C.P.C. should be allowed.

10. Section 115 (3), as amended by C.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) Act, reads as under:

"(3) the superior court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made except where-

(i) the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding; or

(ii) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made."

11. In present case if the impugned order is allowed to stand, it would neither dispose off finally any suit or proceeding relating to any rights of revisionist, nor it would occasion irreparable loss or any failure of justice to him.

12. The court below is taking pains to decide the matter before it expeditiously in compliance of directions of High Court as mentioned in this order. Lower court had jurisdiction to reject the application 54-C for the compliance of directions of High Court.

13. Court below was perfectly within its jurisdiction to reject the application 54-C. No factual, legal or jurisdictional error appears to have been caused in passing of the impugned order that may attract the interference of revisional power of this Court. Therefore revision fails and is, hereby, dismissed.

Order Date :- 21.12.2015

SR