Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prem Singh And Anr vs Sub Registrar Pundri And Anr on 3 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114932
RSA No.441 of 2019(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-441-2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision:-03.09.2024
Prem Singh (since deceased) through LRs and another ... Appellants
Versus
Sub Registrar, Pundri and another ... Respondents
-.-
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RITU TAGORE
Present:- Mr. Rajkapoor Malik, Advocate for the appellant.
****
RITU TAGORE, J.
1. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings returned against
them, appellants-plaintiffs have preferred this Regular Second Appeal against
the impugned judgment dated 17.07.2018, passed by learned District Judge,
Kaithal, affirming and upholding the judgment dated 31.03.2018 passed by
learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal in Civil Suit RBT No.182 of
2015 titled as 'Prem Singh and another Vs. Sub-Registrar Pundri and
another'.
2. For easy reference, the parties to the lis, hereinafter shall be
referred to by their original status in the suit.
3. For proper adjudication of the matter, it is desirable to go
through the facts of the case. The plaintiff instituted a suit for mandatory
injunction, seeking a decree for mandatory injunction, directing the
defendants to nullify the bifurcation of the original Khewat No.71 of the suit
land fully mentioned in the para No.1 of the plaint.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114932
4. Plaintiff pleaded that Revenue Authorities in collusion with
defendant No.1, bifurcated the Khewat No.71 into two khewats; Khewat
No.91 min. and Khewat No.92, without following the due procedure as
provided under the law, rules and regulations made thereunder; while
preparing Jamabandi 2005-06, just to give undue benefits to some co-shares
of the land. Plaintiff served a legal notice to defendant No.2 directing the
defendant No.1 to nullify the bifurcation of the original Khewat No.71, but to
no effect that compelled the plaintiffs to file the present suit.
5. Upon notice, defendants appeared and filed written statement
and raised preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the suit. On
merits, the defendants pleaded that land in dispute has been bifurcated as per
procedure and rules, after considering various sale deeds and the shares sold
by the co-sharers.
6. No replication to the written statement was filed. On the contest
of the pleadings, learned trial Court framed the following issues:-
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of mandatory injunction as
prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in present
form? OPD
3. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the
present suit? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit?
OPD
5. Whether suit is hopelessly time (barred) appeared ?OPD.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114932
6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder, mis-joinder ?OPD.
7. Whether the plaintiffs have suppressed the true facts from the
Court ? OPD.
8. Relief
7. To substantiate their respective version, the parties led the
evidence, as detailed in the judgments of the learned Courts below. The
learned trial Court on appraisal of the pleadings and evidence, concluded that
suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of all the co-sharers, the necessary
parties. Accordingly dismissed the suit.
8. First appeal filed by the plaintiffs was also dismissed by the
learned Appellate Court, holding the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred
under Section 158(1) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887.
9. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal, the plaintiffs preferred
this regular second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs
submit that plaintiffs instituted the suit, challenging the illegal acts of the
revenue officials in bifurcating the Khewat No.71 into two Khewat No.91
Min. and Khewat No.92 without following the due procedure provided in the
Land Record Manual and the Rules and Regulation provided under the
Punjab Land Revenue Act,1887 while preparing Jamabandi for the year
2005-2006, to give, illegal benefits to some of the co-sharers. Learned
counsel submits that once the mutation has been sanctioned and the entries
have been incorporated in the other revenue record i.e., Jamabandi, for
cancellation of said entries civil suit is maintainable in terms of Section 45 of
the Land Revenue Act, 1887. Further, all void orders or proceedings can be
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114932
challenged before the Civil Court, seeking declaration to that effect. Learned
counsel submits that learned Courts below failed to appreciate the facts and
the law governing the issues and prayer is made for acceptance of the appeal
and to decree the suit of the plaintiffs.
10. It would be apposite to go through the relevant provisions of
Section 158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act,1887 which reads as under:-
"158. Exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters within the
jurisdiction of Revenue-officers.-- Except as otherwise provided
by this Act--
(1) A Civil Court shall not have jurisdiction in any matter which the
State Government or a Revenue-officer is empowered by this Act to
dispose of or take cognizance of the manner in which the State
Government or any Revenue-Officer exercises any powers vested
in it or him by or under this Act; and in particular--
(2) A Civil Court shall not exercise jurisdiction over any of the
following matters, namely: -
xxxxxxxxx
(vi) the correction of any entry in a record-of-rights, annual
record or register of mutations;
11. It is cardinal rule of interpretation that where a statute provides
that a particular thing should be done, it should be done in a manner
prescribed and not in any other way. In this regard reliance can be placed on
'State of Jharkhand and others Vs. Ambay Cements and another' (2005)
1 SCC 368.
12. In the present case, the plaintiffs are seeking decree of
mandatory injunction, directing the defendants/State of Haryana, through
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114932
Sub-Registrar, Pundri District Kaithal to nullify the breaking up of original
Khewat No.71 into three Khewat Nos.101, 102, 103 and restore the original
Khewat, which essentially attracts the provisions of Section 158(2)(vi) of the
The Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. The jurisdiction of Civil Court to
entertain any of the matters falling under Section 158(2) of The Punjab Land
Revenue Act, 1887 is barred. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants
could not refute that relief sought by the plaintiffs, essentially invite the rigor
of Section 158 of The Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, which bars the
jurisdiction of Civil Court. Learned first appellate Court therefore was
justified in non suiting the plaintiff on the issue of maintainability of the
suit, being barred under the provisions of the Act (ibid).
13. In view of the discussion made above, I find no illegality in the
findings recorded by learned Courts below, same are based on sound
application of facts and the law. No ground for interference is made out much
less involvement of any substantial question of law.
14. No other point urged.
15. Resultantly, there is no merit in the appeal and is, hereby,
dismissed.
16. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous
application(s), if any, are also disposed of accordingly.
( RITU TAGORE)
03.09.2024 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
5 of 5
