RAMLAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is Plaintiff's second appeal under Section 100, Code of Code of Civil Procedure and is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 25 -1 -1983, passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Khandwa, in Civil Appeal No. 63 -A of 83, arising out of Civil Suit No. 34 -A of 77 decided by the Civil Judge, Class II, Harsood on 30th June, 1980, dismissing the Appellant's suit for declaration of his title and permanent injunction against interference with his possession over the suit lands.

(2.) THE suit land is khasra No. 19/1, area 20.70 acres situated in Mouza Rajpura Bhak har, Tahsil Harsood appearing in Bhumiswami rights of one Ram Chand son of Deo Chand Gujar, in revenue records. The Respondent No. 3 is the widow of the said Ram Chand and Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 are his daughters. Though they have been joined as Defendants in the suit, they have not filed their written -statement nor have contested the claim. It, however, appears that Respondents 3 to 8 filed their return, purporting to be under Section 9 of the M. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') including this land in their holding and alleging that the same was also recorded in the name of Ram Chand in revenue records. Based on the aforesaid return, a draft statement, as required under Section 11 of the Act was published in accordance with Rules made thereunder. It is, however, clear that copy of the draft statement was not sent to the Appellant by the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority considered various objections and ultimately, by his order dated 18 -8 -1975, passed under Section 11(4) of the Act, declared 23.98 acres of land as surplus. The Respondent Parwatibai alone was held entitled to 30 acres, whereas Respondents 4 to 7 were held as not belonging to the family. This order has not been filed before the learned trial Judge but it appears that a certified copy thereof was filed before the learned lower appellate Court. A perusal of the said order indicates that the suit land was held to be belonging to Respondent Parwatibai and was therefore, included in her holdings. It appears that thereafter on 5 -4 -1976, the Appellant filed his claim over the suit land and prayed for re -opening of the matter. The Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 also filed another objection claiming that they were also the owner. The Appellant's objection was dismissed on 3 -11 -1976 on the ground that the matter having become final, he had no power of reviewing the same. The objection of the Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 was also dismissed by order, dated 22 -12 -1975. It may be noticed that though the order, dated 18 8 1975 was not conclusive and could be challenged under Section 11 (5) of the Act, neither the Appellant nor the Respondents 3 to 8 challenged the same. The Appellant, however, filed the present suit on 12 -5 -1977, claiming the declaration and injunction as aforesaid. This suit, according to the Appellant, was not under Section 11 (5) of the Act but was under the General Law. His case was that he had been in continuous, open, peaceful and exclusive possession of the suit land in his own rights for more than 18 years and has therefore perfected his title by adverse possession much before 1971. On this basis, he claimed ownership and further declaration that the order, dated 18 -8 -1975 declaring the suit land as surplus or the subsequent order vesting land in Government was not binding on him. The suit, as noticed earlier was contested by the Respondents No. 1 and 2 only who filed their separate but almost identical written -statement. They denied that the Appellant was in continuous, peaceful, adverse possession of the suit land and had become owner thereof. Learned trial Judge on appreciation of evdence on record held that it was not proved that Ram Chand, the recorded owner died about 20 years before. He also held that it was not proved that the Appellant was in possession of the suit land during the life time of Ram Chand. Learned Judge also considered the documentary evidence of Khasras Panchsala, Exs. P -21, 22 and 23 and held that it does not prove possession of 12 years or before the date of vesting. In this view of the matter, the learned Judge found no substance in the claim and dismissed the suit. Learned lower appellate Court was of the opinion that the documentary evidence on record indicates Appellant's possession for about 20 years. Since this possession was as owner, the learned appellate Judge came to the conclusion that the Appellant had become the owner of the suit land by adverse possession. In spite of it, the learned Judge dismissed the suit as barred by limitation. According to the learned Judge the title over the suit land had already been decided summarily by the Competent Authority under the Act and hence the suit should have been brought within 3 months under Section 11 (5) of the Act. That is how the matter is before this Court in this appeal for consideration.

(3.) WHETHER a Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit independently of Section 11 (5) of the Act has arisen from time to time before this Court. As stated earlier that a Civil Suit to set aside the order of Competent Authority passed under Section 11 (4) of the Act can be filed under Section 11 (5) and subject to the decision in such a suit, the order of the Competent Authority is treated as final and conclusive. Section 46 of the Act further provides that no Civil Court shall have any jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Competent Authority except as provided in this Act. It may therefore appear that a suit to set -aside the order of the Competent Authority passed under Section 11 (4) of the Act can be filed only under Section 11 (5) and not otherwise. This also is the view taken by this Court in Vijaya Singh's case (supra) and Jagat Singh's case (supra). Vijaya Singh's case (supra), however, envisages a situation where a Civil Court in spite of Section 11 (5) and 46 of the Act has the jurisdiction to decide questions of title. According to the Full Bench, the Civil Court will have jurisdiction only under two specific circumstances viz. (1) if the Competent Authority has not decided the question of title under Sub -section (4); and (2) if there are no proceedings before the Competent Authority ? According to the Full Bench, "If there are proceedings before the Competent Authority and an order passed under Sub -section (4) of Section 11 of the Act deciding the question of title summarily, then the Civil Court will have jurisdiction only in a suit as contemplated under Sub -section (5) of Section 11 of Ceiling Act."