http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1609-1610 of 2001

PETITIONER: Dolhin Padharo Devi

RESPONDENT: Indrajeet Tiwary & Anr

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/01/2008

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment rendered  by a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court dismissing  the Civil Revision filed and the order in the Review Petition.  Before the High Court challenge was to the order passed by   learned Munsif, Bikramganj in T.S. No. 162 of 1992 by which  the Objection Petition, filed by the defendant-Petitioner before  the High Court viz. respondent No.1 in the present appeal, was  rejected.  His stand was that in view of Section 43 of the Bihar  Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of  Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (in short the ’Act’) the suit was  incompetent.

2.      Factual position in a nutshell is as follows:

       Two pre-emption applications under Section 16(3) of the  Act were filed by the pre-emptier defendant Respondent No.1,  herein. They were registered as Ceiling Case Nos. 19 and 20 of  1973.  The plaintiff i.e. purchaser filed objection.  The Deputy  Commissioner of Lands Reforms, Sasaram rejected both the  Petitions.  Thereafter the appeals bearing Nos. 49 of 1974 and  52 of 1975 were filed which were allowed by learned Additional  Collector.  Purchaser-plaintiff, the appellant herein, challenged  the same up to the High Court in CWJC Nos. 5970 and 5971  of 1983 and raised an issue relating to jurisdiction of the  Authorities under the Act.  The High Court by a common order  and judgment dated 11th October, 1991 dismissed the writ  petitions.  After dismissal of the two writ petitions, the  purchaser-plaintiff (appellant herein) filed Title Suit No. 162 of  1992 in the Court of Munsif, Bikramganj for declaration that  the orders passed by the Ceiling Court in Ceiling Case Nos. 19  & 20 of 1973 were without jurisdiction and not binding on the  purchaser.  The present respondent No. 1 appeared and filed a  petition before the Court below relating to maintainability of  the suit.  It was pointed out that the said suit was barred in  terms of Section 43 of the Act and the Court below had no  jurisdiction to entertain the said suit, against an order passed  under the Act. Learned Munsif, after hearing the parties,  rejected the application and therefore the Civil Revision was  filed.  The plaintiff-respondent No.1 in the present appeal,  relied on a decision of the High Court in the case of Nand  Kishore Singh v. Satya Narain Singh & Ors. (AIR 1978 Patna  315). The High Court after considering the ratio of the said  decision and the factual position held that the question

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

relating to jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act was  specifically in issue in the writ petitions. By judgment dated  11th October, 1991, the writ petitions were dismissed.   Therefore it was held that the title suit filed by the present  appellant was not maintainable in terms of Section 43 of the  Act.

3.      In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the  appellant submitted that the view of the High Court is clearly  wrong and the reasoning of the High Court cannot be  maintained.

4.      Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand  supported the impugned order of the High Court.

5.      Section 43 of the Act reads as follows:

"43.  Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court : (1)     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 (x x x  x), the appellate authority or  the Collector.

(2)     No order of the Board of  Revenue, (x x x x) the appellate  authority or the Collector  made, under this Act, shall be  questioned in any court."

6.      It is firmly established that the jurisdiction of the civil  appeal to deal with civil right can be excluded by legislature,  but the statutory provision in this regard must be expressed  and clear.  The bar created under the relevant provisions of a  Statute excluding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot  however operate in cases where the plea raised before the Civil  Court goes to the root of the matter and could, if upheld, lead  to the conclusion that the impugned order is a nullity.   This  position was highlighted by this Court in Ram Swarup and  Ors. v. Shikar Chand & Anr. [AIR 1966 SC 893]. If the  proceedings of the orders passed therein are completely  without jurisdiction then the bar to the maintainability to the  suit in the ordinary civil court would not apply.  The High  Court noted that a plain reading of Section 43 of the Act  shows that while a suit is not maintainable against an order  passed under the Act, the jurisdiction of the authority passing  such order can be decided by a Civil Court.  The following  observations of the High Court are relevant:

"9. In the present case, it is not in dispute that  the S.B.L.R. and/or the Additional Collector,  who passed the order in the ceiling cases and/  or appeal petitions had such jurisdiction to  decide the dispute raised under Section 16(3)  of the Ceiling Act.

10. The issue relating to such jurisdiction was  also raised by the plaintiff-opposite party in  his earlier writ petitions, which were rejected  by this court."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

7.      In view of the aforesaid position, the High Court held that  the title suit filed by the present appellant was not  maintainable in terms of Section 43 of the Act.

8.      In view of what has been stated by this court in Ram  Swaroop’s case (supra) and the observations of the High Court  at paragraphs 9 & 10 quoted above, the inevitable conclusion is  that the appeals are without merit and deserve dismissal which  we direct.