Vijai Pratap Singh v. Sukhanandan Singh — 1992 DIGILAW 987 (ALL)

JUDGMENT A.U. Khan, J.M. - The facts are: Bench of three members is constituted under orders of Hon'ble Chairman to hear and decide a reference by Hon'ble Member Sri S.K. Lakhatakia, since retired. The facts leading to the reference are: 2. Sukhnandan's move an application in Collector's for correction of map under Section 28 Land Revenue Act. On 20.5.83 a motion is made for issue of injunction order commanding Vijay Pratap Singh, opposite party, to refrain from raising a structure inside the plot. Injunction is accordingly issued. In a counter motion Vijay Pratap Singh had this order rescinded. Once more applicant Sukhnandan's prevail and on 15.6.83 a fresh injunction order is issued commanding Vijay Pratap Singh to refrain from constructing a structure over the land. Deeply disconcerted, Vijay Pratap Singh lodges a revision in Commissioner's. This ends in dismissal. Hence this revision is carried in Board of Revenue, Lucknow. 3. When the hearing was continuing apace before Hon'ble Member S.K. Lakhatakia, an opinion of Hon'ble Chairman, Sri Maheshwar Prasad, since retired, articulated in revision No. 45 of 1981-82/Saharanpur under the title Suleman Beg v. State of U.P. dated 26.7.83, not gone in law reports, is cited on behalf of applicant to buttress their contention in support of injunction order. The opinion in precedent is: "Revenue courts have inherent jurisdiction to issue an injunction order in Land Revenue Act for safe keeping of land in dispute." The referring Member feels the view-point is suspect: he requested Hon'ble Chairman to constitute a Bench for re-consideration. This has led to Larger Bench. We shall address ourselves to reference. 4. Heard the counsel pro and con the reference. 5. Section 28 Land Revenue Act has to do with clerical error in the figure of a map. 1986 ALJ 1298. It is correcting lines in figure of a map in courtroom when an extraction the area is found less than is noted in record of rights. It has nothing to do with actualities at the ground situation or practicalities of Sukhnandan's concern. I am to refer to an unreported case: revision No. 258/1979-80 Aligarh under Section 28 Land Revenue Act decided on 25.3.83 Gaon Sabha v. Girdhari Singh. It rightly mediates: "no enquiry at the spot is necessary". This case is extracted with approval by one of us in 1990 RD 503. I am to refer to an unreported case: revision No. 258/1979-80 Aligarh under Section 28 Land Revenue Act decided on 25.3.83 Gaon Sabha v. Girdhari Singh. It rightly mediates: "no enquiry at the spot is necessary". This case is extracted with approval by one of us in 1990 RD 503. An incidental order of injunction will surely not over reach and go beyond the scope of Section itself. If correcting arm of Section 28 L.R. Act cannot reach the spot, how an incidental order promulgated under it? We cannot bring amenities and solicitious concern, entitlement of first class each to bear upon passengers of third class. The reason is plain. The occupants of third class coach, like applicants Sukhnandan's, have wilfully chosen the cheaper class to suffer some deprivation. If Sukhnandan's cherish maintenance of status quo at the spot, they are at liberty to file an injunction or declaratory law suit. If they are found establishing three essential ingredients, they will secure the injunction order; but that redressal never avails under Section 28 Land Revenue Act. 6. We do not subscribe to the reasons elaborated by Hon'ble Chairman Shri Maheshwar Prasad. Section 151 CPC has been called in aid. This applies only when no specific provision is to serve the ends of justice. There is specific provision of injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C. Secondly Section 19-A General Clauses Act 1904 is extracted. It postulates that when power is given to a person it will include the power to enforce the doing of other things. In our opinion, this section will not do duty here. No where under Section 28 Land Revenue Act power is given to do a thing at the spot? Thirdly, General Ideas devo-tailed in principles of public policy are evoked. This is to go too far. Lastly, reasoning visualises that demarcation under Section 41 Land Revenue Act confers power on revenue court to order demolition of a trespasser's' structure consequent to fixation of boundaries. With respect, this is to go beyond the legitimate concern of Section 41 L.R. Act. What is in section 41 will not follow in Section 28 L.R. Act. More, a trespasser's unauthorised occupation is not removed under Section 41 Land Revenue Act. A trespasser can only be ejected under Section 209 Z.A. & L.R. Act after fixation of boundaries have shown the measure of encroachment. 7. What is in section 41 will not follow in Section 28 L.R. Act. More, a trespasser's unauthorised occupation is not removed under Section 41 Land Revenue Act. A trespasser can only be ejected under Section 209 Z.A. & L.R. Act after fixation of boundaries have shown the measure of encroachment. 7. In a proceeding under Section 28 L.R. Act no determination of title is involved. In injunction suit title is involved and prima facie case is to be shown. Learned D.G.C. (Revenue) calls to attention AIR 1969 S.C. 1152 and A.I.R. 1962 p 627 to urge that court has inherent power to grant injunction in rare cases to do substantial justice. We do not agree; the cited precedents have not been submitted for perusal. 8. Where to seek an injunction order. When title to land noted in records is beyond reproach and possession or other things are in imminent danger, a suit for injunction in Civil Court under Order 39 C.P.C. is the remedy. However where title is shrouded in obscurity and record is dubious and bismirched, the land is revenue paying, a declaratory law suit under Section 229-B Z.A. & L.R. Act is sine qua non for relief under Section 229-D Z.A. & L.R. Act. In such a position, civil court has no right to issue injunction order in respect of revenue matter because there is inherent lack of jurisdiction: 1976 RD 232 , 1978 AWC 337 , H.C. Final determination of tenurial rights is no field of Land Revenue Act no injunction order is legally sustainable under Section 28, L.R. Act. 9. We are of opinion that revenue courts have no inherent powers to issue injunction order: the opinion recorded by Hon'ble Chairman Shri Maheshwar Prasad in revision No. 45 of 1981-82 Saharanpur Suleman Beg v. State of U.P. dated 26.7.83 is hereby overruled. The opinion is sent back to referring court.