Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 524 (UTT)

Dev Singh v. Govind Singh

2013-08-13

B.S.VERMA

body2013
Judgment B.S. Verma, J. 1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the judgment and order dated 01.10.2001, passed by revisional court in Civil Revision No. 12 of 1999 (Bachi Singh and others Vs. Dev Singh and others). 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this writ petition are that plaintiffs (respondents NO. 1 and 2) filed a suit for declaration as well as permanent injunction on three counts. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiffs are bhumidhars and residents of village Asota, Patti Uchyur, District Almora, along with others. Defendants No. 1 and 2, are residents and bhumidharan of village Satyun, Patti Uchyur, District Almora along with others. The suit was filed under Order I, Rule 8 of C.P.C. in the representative capacity. Both the villages are entered in old Bandobasti records, called as “Assi Sal” and “Chuknama”. There is land in both the villages, which is unmeasured and is being used by residents of both the villages within their boundaries for taking grass, jalau lakri (fuel wood) and by other means and have acquired easementry right. The eastern-southern boundary of village Asota of the plaintiffs meets the north-eastern boundary of village Asota of the plaintiffs meets the north-eastern boundary of village Satyum. According to the record, Assi Sala, there is a temple ‘Banadi Devi Temple’, just near the boundary in the east. In 1992, the plaintiffs got verified the boundaries by Amin, who prepared a map and submitted a report, which has been filed along with the plaint as annexure ‘A’. The land has been shown in the map by letters Cha, Ja, Jha, Ma Ta, Da, Dha and other land has been shown by different letters and according to old boundaries, is mentioned in Assi Sala. It is further alleged that a Forest Panchayat was created in 1993, in the plaintiffs’ village and simultaneously a Forest Panchayat was also created by defendants in their village Satyun and that included 3 acre land of Forest Panchayat, Asota, which was later on taken from the boundary of village Satyun and included in the boundary of Village Asota. 3. As per plaint allegations, the defendants are claiming themselves to be the owners of said land and are interfering in the easementary right of the residents of village Asota, hence suit was filed. 3. As per plaint allegations, the defendants are claiming themselves to be the owners of said land and are interfering in the easementary right of the residents of village Asota, hence suit was filed. The defendants filed written statement denying the allegations of the plaint and pleaded themselves to be the owners of the land in dispute. 4. The trial court framed certain number of issues, whereby issues no. 3, 4, 8 and 9 were held as preliminary issues. Learned Civil Judge (J.D.), after hearing both the parties on preliminary issues, decided them against the plaintiffs. 5. Issue no. 3, framed by the trial court was whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? Learned Civil Judge (J.D.) after hearing the parties held that the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. 6. Revisional court after hearing both the parties to the suit, vide order dated 01.10.2001, held that the dispute is regarding the traditional boundaries and the easementary rights, which is of civil nature, therefore, said suit is cognizable by the civil court. Hence this writ petition. 7. I have perused the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondents. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that admittedly it is a dispute regarding boundaries of two villages, which can only be settled by the revenue court and in support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment, passed in 1978 ALL.L.J. 1035, Faqir Singh and others Vs. Bhim Singh and others, wherein in para-3, it has been stated that the boundaries of a village can be resettled in the course of settlement operations and any prior disputes as boundaries or other similar matter would be within the jurisdiction of the officers entrusted with the settlement work. 9. I have perused the plaint. The relief sought in the plaint was regarding correction of the revenue record of settlement and it was further prayed for quashing the order passed by S.D.O., regarding the boundary dispute. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the revisional court has committed manifest error of law in passing the impugned order since the main relief sought was to resettle the boundary dispute and correct the revenue record, which is cognizable by revenue court. The writ petition is allowed. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the revisional court has committed manifest error of law in passing the impugned order since the main relief sought was to resettle the boundary dispute and correct the revenue record, which is cognizable by revenue court. The writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the lower court is maintained and the order dated 01.10.2001, is set aside. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to pursue the matter before the revenue court.