Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1020 (PNJ)

Ranjit Singh v. Faridabad Complex Administration

2009-05-27

K.KANNAN

body2009
Judgment K.Kannan, J. 1. The case is of the year 1991 and there has been no appearance for the respondent. The counsel, who has been previously appearing, Sh. Anand Swaroop was reported to be dead and therefore, the hearing of the appeal was informed to office of the Advocate General, Haryana. Learned counsel for the Government represented that they do not represent the Faridabad Municipal Corporation and there was a separate panel for the same. He also submitted that his office has informed the Municipal Corporation. 2. The matter relates to a pure consideration of law relating to the maintainability of the suit and the trial of the suit has been stayed for nearly two decades without the consideration of the case itself on merits all these years. I undertake, therefore, to consider the case regarding maintainability of the suit with the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and proceed to dispose of the case. 3. The suit had been filed for a declaration that certain lands measuring 419 kanals 13 marlas situate in the revenue estate of village Mewla Maharajpur belonged to the plaintiffs and the defendant namely Faridabad Complex Administration did not have any right in respect of any portion of the suit land, as well as for a decree for permanent injunction against defendant from claiming any right in respect of the property. The written statement had been filed and it objected, among other grounds, to the maintainability of the suit saying that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the present suit. This bald statement in the written statement was sought to be dilated at the time of arguments by a reference to Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Haryana Amendment Act of 1980. The trial Court upheld the objection and directed the suit to be returned to the plaintiffs for proper remedy and presentation to the appropriate Court provided under the Punjab Village (Common Land Regulation) Act as amended by the Haryana Act of 1980. The Appellate Court confirmed the decision of the trial Court and the plaintiff, who was fended off from the Civil Courts portals, is the revision petitioner before this Court. 4. The Appellate Court confirmed the decision of the trial Court and the plaintiff, who was fended off from the Civil Courts portals, is the revision petitioner before this Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner points out that since the property is situate within the municipal limits of Faridabad, the Act applicable in respect of the properties was only Faridabad Complex (Regulation & Development) Act, 1971 which excluded the applicability of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 . Admittedly the expansive provision as to exclusion that was contained under Section 13-A of the latter Act was not substituted in the Faridabad Complex (Regulation & Development) Act, 1971. On the other hand, the exclusion operates in a narrow filed through Section 51 of the said Act which reads "No order passed by the State Government or any authority in exercise of any power conferred by or under the Act shall be called in question in any Court." Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would urge that the suit was for a declaration of the right that the property belonged to the plaintiffs and no order of the Government or any authority, which the said Section contemplates was ever to be in question in the suit. 5. A suit for declaration in relation to immovable property is obviously a suit of civil nature and as per Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code all matters of civil nature shall be decided only by a Civil Court unless the jurisdiction of Civil Court is excluded by specific provisions of any enactment. Courts have consistently held that the exclusion of the jurisdiction of a Civil Court shall be strictly construed and it shall always be the burden on the party pleading exclusion to prove the same. I have already pointed out that there was not even a specific contention raised in the written statement about the exclusion of the Civil Courts jurisdiction by reference to any specific enactment. The trial Court at the first instance and the Appellate Court invoked the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 without properly adverting to the fact that the Act itself was not applicable in respect of the property in Faridabad. The trial Court at the first instance and the Appellate Court invoked the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 without properly adverting to the fact that the Act itself was not applicable in respect of the property in Faridabad. Even the applicability of the Act would have merited consideration only if the nature of land itself had been admitted to be Shamlat Deh where the authorities constituted under the said Act would have jurisdiction to decide. In this case, the specific contention of the plaintiffs were that the property did not become vested with either the Panchayat or the Municipal Committee that came to be established subsequently for Faridabad. The order returning the plaint holding that the Civil Court jurisdiction was barred was clearly erroneous. The adjudication that the plaintiffs were seeking for was well within the competence of the Civil Court and the orders impugned are liable to be set aside. 6. The civil revision petition is, accordingly, allowed and the matter is remitted to the trial Court which shall take up the case on a priority basis, having regard to the fact that the suit had been instituted as early as in the year 1986, preferably within six months and report to this Court. The parties shall appear before the trial Court on 16.07.2009.