MOHAMMAD ILYAS Vs. MOHAMMAD RAHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the impugned order, the trial Court has decided a preliminary issue against the plaintiff-petitioner and has held that the suit is not maintainable. The plaintiff has challenged the correctness of the judgment by the present application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The plaintiff-petitioner purchased some land detailed in Schedule "A" to the plaint from the defendants 2nd party (opposite party No. 2 and 3) on 21.9.1966 and the defendant no. 1 filed an application under section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before the appropriate authority, the Sub-divisional Officer, Purnea. The plaintiff's case in the plaint is that he appeared in the proceeding and pleaded, inter alia, that since the defendant no. 1 was holding land in his own name and in the Farzi name of his wife, in excess of the ceiling area prescribed by the Act, his application was bound to be dismissed. The Sub-divisional Officer, however, did not consider this aspect of the matter, but dismissed the application on another ground, which the plaintiff states was misconceived. The defendant no. 1 filed an appeal provided under the Act which was heard and allowed by the appellate authority, the Additional Collector, Purnea by his order dated 30th March 1968. The Additional Collector found that the total area held by the defendant was less than the ceiling prescribed by law and, as such, his application could not fail on the ground mentioned above. The plaintiff thereafter unsuccessfully moved the Commissioner, Bhagalpur and the Board of Revenue, Bihar. The plaintiff has asserted that the total holding of defendant no. 1 is, in fact, in excess of the ceiling area and his application could not have been entertained or allowed. The jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act being dependent on this issue, they cannot assume jurisdiction, where they have none, by deciding the fact wrongly. The decision of the revenue authorities is, therefore, without jurisdiction and the Civil Court has full power to declare it so and grant the reliefs prayed for in the plaint.

(3.) In his written statement, the defendant no. 1 challenged the maintainablity of the suit and pleaded the bar mentioned in section 43 of the Act, which reads as follows :- 3. Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court.-(I) Save and except as provided in this Act, no Civil Court shall have 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 Board of Revenue, the Commissioner, the appellate authority or the Collector ; (2) No order of the Board of Revenue, the Commissioner, the appellate authority or the Collector made under this Act shall be questioned in any Court."