Ram Niwas vs Pitamber Singh And Ors.
2007 Latest Caselaw 1789 Del

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

1. The suit was listed today for hearing on the preliminary issue No. 5 in terms of Order dated 12.03.2007. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff submits that the Order dated 12.03.2007 needs to be modified to the extent that it is only issues No. 2 & 4 which cannot be tried by the Civil Court (Collateral proceedings being pending before the Revenue Court) and not issue No. 3. Thus the submission is that in respect of issue Nos. 3 also, the Civil Court would have jurisdiction. Learned Counsel for defendant Nos. 2 & 3 on the other hand contends that there is no need for modification of the Order in view of the provisions of Section 186 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 ('DLR Act' for short). The said provision reads as under:

186. Procedure when question of title is raised -

1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 185, if in any suit or proceedings in Column 3 of Schedule I, a question is raised regarding the title of any party to the land which is the subject matter of the suit or proceeding any such question is directly and substantially in issue the court shall, unless the question has already been decided by a competent court, frame an issue on the question of the title and submit the record to the competent civil court for the decision of that issue only.

Explanation - A plea regarding the title to the land which is clearly untenable and intended solely to oust the jurisdiction of the revenue court shall not be deemed to raise a question regarding the title to the land within the meaning of this Section.

2) The civil court, after re-framing the issue, if necessary shall decide such issue only and return the record together with its finding thereon to the revenue court which submitted it.

3) The revenue court shall then proceed to decide the suit, accepting the finding of the civil court on the issue referred to it.

4) An appeal from a decree of a revenue court in a suit or proceeding in which an issue regarding title has been decided by a civil court under Sub-section (2) shall lie to the civil court which having regard to the valuation of the suit has jurisdiction to her appeal from the court to which the issue of title has been referred.

2. Learned Counsel submits that the judgment of the Apex Court in Hatti v. Sunder Singh puts the matter at rest in view of what has been observed in para 7 of the said judgment. The same is re-produced hereinunder:

The High Court, in this connection, referred to Section 186 of the Act under which any question raised regarding the title of any party to the land which is the subject matter of a suit or proceeding under the First Schedule has to be referred by the Revenue Court to the competent Civil Court for decision after framing an issue on that question. Inference was sought to be drawn from this provision that questions of title could be competently agitated by a suit in the Civil Court as the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not barred. It appears to us that there is no justification for drawing such an inference. On the contrary, Section 186 envisages that questions of title will arise before the Revenue Courts in suits or proceedings under the First Schedule and, only if such a question arises in a competent proceeding pending in a Revenue Court, an issue will be framed and referred to the Civil Court. Such a provision does not give jurisdiction to the Civil Court to entertain the suit itself on a question of title. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is limited to decided the issue of title referred to it by the Revenue Court. This clearly implies that, if a question of title is raised in an application for declaration of Bhumidari rights under Item 4 of Schedule I of the Act, that question will then be referred by the Revenue Assistant to the Civil Court; but a party wanting to raise such a question of title in order to claim Bhumidari right cannot directly approach the Civil Court. The Act is a complete Code under which it is clear that any one, wanting a declaration of his right as a Bhumidar, or aggrieved by a declaration issued without notice to him in favor of another, can approach the Revenue Assistant under Item 4 of the First Schedule and this he is allowed to do without any period of limitation, because he may not be aware of the fact that a declaration has been issued in respect of his holding in favor of another. A declaration by a Gaon Sabha of the right of any person can also be sought without any period of limitation. If there is dispute as to possession of agricultural land, the remedy has to be sought under Section 84, read with Item 19 of the First Schedule. All the reliefs claimed by the respondent in the present suit were, thus, within the competent jurisdiction of the Revenue Assistant, and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

3. A reading of the aforesaid observations along with provisions of the DLR Act shows that the Supreme Court has held that the Civil Court would have no jurisdiction even in respect of matters of title directly and proceedings would have to be initiated before the Revenue Courts. In such proceedings before the Revenue Court, if a question arises in a competent proceeding, the issue would be framed and referred to a Civil Court. Such a provision has been held not to give jurisdiction to the Civil Court to entertain the suit itself on the question of title and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is limited to deciding the issue of title on the issue referred to it by the Revenue Court.

4. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff still contends that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot be barred in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in Dhulabhai and Ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. 3 SCR 1968 682 in which it has been observed that where a Statute gives finality to the Orders of a Special Tribunal, the Civil Courts' jurisdiction would be excluded but such provision does not exclude those cases where provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or statutory Tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of the judicial procedure. It is thus the submission of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff that the Orders have been passed by the Revenue Authority in violation of the provisions of Section 48 and 51 of the DRL Act.

5. In a nutshell the case of the plaintiff is that there could not have been any devolution of Bhumidari interest on defendant No. 1.

6. On consideration of the aforesaid, I am of the view that the proceedings are pending before the Revenue Court in this behalf and it is the Revenue Courts alone which would have the jurisdiction in the matter. The Supreme Court has specifically dealt with the provisions of the DRL Act in Hatti v. Sunder Singh's case (supra) and the general observations in Dhulabhai and Ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.'s case (supra) cannot dilute the interpretation of the provisions of the Act in question in a subsequent judgment in Hatti v. Sunder Singh's case (supra). That being the position, request by the learned senior counsel for the plaintiff cannot be acceded to.

7. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff states that even in respect of issue Nos. 2 and 4 his submissions are the same as in respect of issue No. 3. Thus, in my considered view, the answer of the Court would also be the same.

8. The result of the aforesaid is that the issue Nos. 2 to 4 have to be tried by the Revenue Court. Since the matter was listed only for decision on issue No. 5, which was regarding the jurisdiction of this Court to determine issue Nos. 2 to 4, the said issue would have to be answered in favor of the defendants. The result is that in the present proceedings, the trial has to take place only in respect of issue No. 1.

9. The result is that the suit would have to proceed only in respect of prayer Clauses (i), (v) and (vi) of the plaint.

10. The parties to file their list of witnesses within fifteen days. Since the onus of the sole issue is on defendant No. 1, defendants would lead the evidence first. The defendants to file their affidavits of examination in chief within four weeks. Joint Registrar is appointed as the local commissioner to record evidence.

11. On completion of evidence of the defendants, plaintiff is permitted to file affidavits of examination in chief. On completion of trial, list before the Court.

12. List before the Joint Registrar for directions regarding trial on 03.12.2007.