Gaya Singh & Others vs Ram Sahay & Others

The applicants have filed the present revision challenging the order dated 16.08.2016 passed by Civil Judge Class-I, Amarpatan, District Satna

in Civil Suit No. 163-A/2016 by which the trial Court has dismissed the application preferred by the applicants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the

C.P.C.

Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs have purchased the disputed land in the year 1946 and they got the said land mutated in their favour

in the year 1962. The applicants belongs to the Aboriginal Tribe. The S.D.O had taken over the possession of the disputed land in the year 1984

in view of the amendment made in Section 170- B of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed a civil suit in the

year 1996 challenging the order passed by the SDO. During the pendency of the civil suit, the applicants have filed an application under Order 7

Rule 11 of the C.P.C stating that the said civil suit is not maintainable as per Section 257 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. The

respondents have filed reply to the said application denied the allegations made therein. The learned Civil Judge vide order dated 20.01.2006 has

dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved by that order, the applicants have filed a Civil Revision No. 89/2006 before this Court. The said

revision was allowed by this Court vide order dated 06.11.2012 and directed the trial Court to decide the application preferred by the applicants

under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. on merit expeditiously in accordance with law. In pursuance to the aforesaid order, the learned Civil Judge

passed an order dated 16.08.2016 by which he has rejected the application preferred by the applicants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C.

Being aggrieved by that order, the applicants have filed the present revision.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that the trial Court has erred in rejecting the application filed by the applicants

under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. He submits that the suit is not maintainable in view of the amendment made in Section 257 of the Madhya

Pradesh Land Revenue Code. He submits that in the present case, the amendment in Section 257 has been made in the year 1995 and the present

suit is filed in the year 1996 i.e. after amendment, therefore, the same is not maintainable. He further argues that the suit has been filed claiming the

relief for quashing the order of the SDO which, according to Section 257 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, can be challenged only before the

revenue authorities.

On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents supports the order passed by the trial Court and submits that the trial Court has not

committed any error in rejecting the application preferred by the applicants. With regard to the allegations made by the applicants under Order 7

Rule 11 of the C.P.C., it is submitted by him that the trial Court has already framed the issues and also directed to decide the said issues as a

preliminary issue. He further submits that while passing the impugned order, the revenue authorities have not followed the procedure as prescribed

under the Code, therefore, as per the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Sosamma (Smt.) Vs. Smt. Mathura Bai and others, 2008 R.N.

220, the suit is maintainable.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the order passed by the trial Court. From perusal of the record, it

reveals that the respondents/plaintiffs have filed a civil suit for declaration of title as well as for permanent injunction and a relief has also been

prayed for quashment of the orders dated 16.05.1984 and 28.11.1992 passed by the SDO and Collector respectively. The said civil suit was filed

on 24.07.1996. During the pendency of the said civil suit, the respondents have filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C for

rejection of the plaint on the ground that the said is not maintainable in view of the amendment made under Section 257 of the M.P. Land Revenue

Code. Initially, the trial Court after hearing the parties, dismissed the said application on 20.01.2006. Against the said order, the applicants have

preferred a Civil Revision No. 89/2006 which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 06.11.2012 and remanded the matter back to the trial

Court to decide the said application on merits. In compliance of the direction issued by this Court, the trial Court has passed the impugned order.

It is settled law that while deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. only plaint allegations are required to be seen. In the

present case, from perusal of the plaint, it reveals that the respondents have filed the civil suit challenging the orders dated 16.05.1984 and

28.11.1992 passed by the SDO and Collector respectively. They have passed the said orders without following the procedure as prescribed

under the Code. The Section 257 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The Section 257 has been amended

with effect from 15.12.1995 and this amendment was not made applicable to the civil suit which are instituted prior to 15.12.1995. In the present

case, the civil suit is filed on 24.07.1996 i.e. after coming into force of the amendment.

This Court in the case of Dhumaniya Vs. Harisingh and others, 2001 R.N. 85 has held that whether the basic fundamental principle of judicial

process have been followed or not by the competent authority passing the order. The jurisdiction of the civil Court is limited only to that extent

whether the revenue authorities has followed the procedure in passing the impugned order. The said judgment has been followed by this Court in

the case of Sosamma (Smt.) (supra) in para 14 has held as under:-

In view of the aforesaid dictum inspite the bar created under section 257(1) and (L-1) of the Code against orders passed by the Revenue

Authorities under section 170-A and 170-B of the Code in their exclusive jurisdiction even then the civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain and

consider the matter up to the extent whether the authority concerned has complied with the prescribed procedure or not while holding the enquiry

and passing the order. But such jurisdiction is limited as laid down in the case of Dhula Bhai (supra). The Civil Court cannot consider the questions

decided by such revenue authorities on merits under their exclusive jurisdiction. Thus, it is held that the civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain such

suit upto the aforesaid extent.

In the present case, from perusal of the plaint allegations, it reveals that the plaintiffs have made an allegation that while passing the impugned

order, revenue authority had not followed the procedure prescribed under the Code. On the basis of the plaint allegations, the trial Court has

already framed the issues regarding these allegations and has also directed to decide the said issues as a preliminary issue. It is also be noted that in

the present case, the issues have already been framed and the statements of the plaintiffs have already been recorded.

Thus, in view of the aforesaid that the trial Court has already framed the issued regarding the allegations made by the applicants under Order 7

Rule 11 of the C.P.C and the trial Court has already directed to decide the said issues as a preliminary issue. Therefore, I do not find any reason to

entertain in the said revision.

Accordingly, the revision is dismissed being devoid of merits.