VIJAYSINGH Vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER TARANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference has been made by a learned single Judge of this Court and the questions that are referred to us are: (1) Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit independently of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Madhya Pradesh ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act 1960? (2) Whether for preferring an objection under Sub-section (3) of section 11 of the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act 1960, Section 5 of the Limitation Act would be applicable in view of the provisions contained in Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act (No. 36 of 1963)?

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present reference in brief are that proceedings under Section 11 of the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ceiling Act') were initiated against the appellants. A draft statement was notified as contemplated in Sub-section (3) of section 11 by the Competent Authority. No objection to the draft statement had been made on behalf of the appellants within thirty days as provided for in that sub-section; but an objection petition was filed after the period of thirty days. This petition was rejected by the Competent Authority on the short ground that it was filed beyond the period prescribed under Sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Ceiling Act and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 was not applicable to an objection petition under Sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Ceiling Act. Aggrieved thereby the plain tiff appellants filed a suit before the Civil Court agitating certain questions of title and also challenging the order passed by the competent Authority. The trial Court as well as the lower Appellate Court held that Civil Court had no jurisdiction in view of the provisions contained in Subsection (4) of Section 11; therefore, a second appeal was preferred to this court. The learned single Judge of this Court by his order dated 17-7-1970 felt that the two questions mentioned above being questions of law of general importance should be decided by a larger Bench and referred the matter to hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a Larger Bench. Consequently, the matter has been placed before us.

(3.) SECTION 11 of the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act 1960 reads: