http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: DEOKINANDAN & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SURAJPAL & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT30/10/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  Supl.  (4) 671 JT 1995 (8)   150  1995 SCALE  (6)213

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This Court  had given  time on September 1, 1995 to Mr. K.K. Gupta,  Advocate, to  file counteraffidavit within four weeks from  that date  and on failure to do the same, it was stated that  he would forfeit the right to file the counter- affidavit and  the matter  would be  disposed of  on  merits without reference to any counter - affidavit. The petitioner had already served the  notices on all the other respondents and dasti  service also  was effected.  Notices  accordingly have been  served. But  counter-affidavit has not been filed till  today.   The  right   to  file   counter-affidavit  is forfeited.      Leave granted.      The controversy  is no  longer res integra. Admittedly, the suit  lands are  governed by  the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition  and Land  Reforms Act, 1951 [for short, ’the Act’].  The appellant  had raised  the objection to the jurisdiction of  the civil court in his defence in the trial court. He pleaded thus :      "The suit  is barred  under the provisions of      Section 331  of U.P. Zamindari & Land Reforms      Act.  The   sale  is  not  barred  under  the      provisions of  Section 168-A of Z.A. Act. The      plaintiff’s suit  is liable  to be  dismissed      with costs."      In the  appellate court  also the  same point  has been reiterated but negatived. The second appeal was dismissed by the High Court in limine. Thus this appeal by special leave.      This Court  in Chandrika  Misir &  Anr. vs.  Bhaiya Lal [1974 (1)  SCR 290]  had to  deal with the same question. It was held that:-      "Sections  209  and  331  of  U.P.  Zamindari      Abolition and  Land Reforms  Act, 1951,  when      read together,  showed that  a suit, like the      present one,  had to  be filed  in a  Special

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    Court created  under the  Act within a period      of limitation  specially prescribed under the      Rules   made   under   the   Act,   and   the      jurisdiction of  the ordinary Civil Courts to      entertain the suit was absolutely barred.      Since the  Civil Court  which entertained the      suit  suffered   from  an  inherent  lack  of      jurisdiction because of special provisions of      the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms      Act, 1951,  the present  appeal filed  by the      appellants had to be dismissed."      The above  ratio applies  to the facts in this case. As pointed out earlier, the lands are covered by the provisions of the  Act and  express objection as to the jurisdiction of the civil  court was raised. The appellant had purchased 0.7 acres of  land out  of 2.17  acres. The abadi site comprises one Kachha  Kotha and  Ghar having boundary walls. Since the lands are  admittedly covered  by the provisions of the Act, the Civil  Court inherently  lacked jurisdiction  to go into the question of title.      The appeal  is accordingly  allowed and the suit stands dismissed in  so far  as it  relates to  0.7. acres  of land purchased by the appellant. No costs.