Himmat Singh vs Pratap Singh

V.R. Newaskar, J.—The only question raised in this revision petition is regarding jurisdiction.

Plaintiff filed the present suit for the recovery of the possession of the Bada attached to his house. This Bada is allowed to be held by him as a Pakka Krishak under the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act. The suit is filed u/s 9 of the Specific Relief Act alleging that the Defendant had dispossessed him of the said Bada on 30-10-1960. The suit was brought on 7-11-1960. The Defendant in his written statement raised one of the contentions that the suit is barred u/s 257 read with Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code in as much as a Revenue Court is empowered to determine the dispute regarding dispossession of a person from land held by him as Bhumi-swami. The Plaintiff as he claims the land as a Pakka Tenant and belongs to Madhya Bha-rat is a Bhumiswami within the terms of section 158 of the Code. The Court below held that the suit in the civil Court was competent and directed the case to proceed- The present revision petition is directed against that order.

It is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the finding of the learned Judge regarding competency of the suit by the civil Court involves as error pertaining to jurisdiction.

Section 158 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code defines the term Bhumiswami and as per that definition a person holding land in the capacity of Pakka Tenant in the Madhya Bharat region would be a Bhumiswami. u/s 250 of the Code power is conferred upon a Revenue Court to reinstate a Bhumiswami who has been improperty dispossessed. This power can be exercised within two years from the date of dispossession. Section 257 of the Code excludes the jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain any suit for obtaining a decision or order which any Revenue Officer is empowered to decide. Since the question of reinstatement of a Bhumiswami can be decided by a Tahsildar when the dispossession occurs within two years of the filing of the suit the jurisdiction of the civil Court would naturally be barred. In the case of Atmaram v. Shivjiram (civil Revision No. 334 of 1952) I, as a Judge of the Madhya Bharat High Court, had considered a similar question u/s 91 and 147 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act (corresponding to Section 250 and 257 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code) and had taken a view that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit, u/s 9 of the Specific Relief Act for restoration of possession of a land to dispossess a Pakka Tenant. This decision was approved in the Division Bench decision in Ratansingh v. Mukutsingh 1956 MB. LJ 1458 and later in Beharilal v. Ma-hendrakumar Madhya Bharat Law Reporter 1956 civil 795. Mr. Garg, who appears for the Respondent, frankly says that in view of the aforesaid decisions, the reasoning of which is fully applicable to the present case, the civil Courts will not have jurisdiction to try the suit.

The petition is therefore allowed. The decision of the lower Court is set aside and it is directed that it shall direct the return of the plaint for presentation to proper Court on the ground that civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

6 The Petitioner is entitled to his costs of this petition from the opposite side.