JAIPAL SINGH Vs. AMAN SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition is against the order dismissing an application filed for rejection of the plaint. The contention was that the suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking for prayer that the order of partition made by the Collector was illegal and null and void, could not have been brought before a civil court since the jurisdiction of the civil court is excluded by virtue of Sec. 158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The exclusion relates to every matter for which the revenue officer is empowered by the Act to dispose of and take cognizance and, according to him, an order making partition is a power conferred on the Collector under the Act of 1887 and hence suit was incompetent. The court rejected the prayer on a contention raised by the plaintiffs that the Collector did not have, according to the plaintiffs, jurisdiction and that the property in the plaintiffs possession was not an agricultural land but gairmumkin over which constructions have been made. The court rejected the defendant's contention and allowed for further process in trial.

(2.) I have gone through the relevant provisions and heard the arguments of both the sides. While on face of it, it might appear that a prayer for declaring an order passed by the Collector exercising jurisdiction under the Act would not be competent by virtue of Sec. 158 of the Act, it has to be inevitably seen in the context of pleadings. The plaintiff's' case is on a averment that the Collector did not had the jurisdiction and the parties had orally divided the properties in the year 1981 and they had also built a pucca house, a garage, a tin shed for storing agricultural implements and boundary walls in the area of 4 kanal 4 marlas in the year 1991 and such a property which was used otherwise than for agricultural and which was in possession could not have been a subject of partition by the Collector. Further averment is that the order had been passed without even personal inspection of the property in dispute and that the proceedings were vitiated.

(3.) Exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court, it has been held in several decision, cannot be lightly inferred. The Supreme Court in State of A.P. v/s. Manjeti Laxmi Kantha Rao (D) by L.Rs and others : 2000 AIR (SC) 2220 held as under: - -