Santhru (Died) Through Lr's vs Dhanrajiya

This second appeal preferred by the original plaintiff was admitted for hearing on 12.12.2019 by formulating the following substantial question of

law for determination:Â​

“Whether both the Courts below were justified in holding that the suit is barred by provisions contained under Section 257 (lÂ1) of the Chhattisgarh

Land Revenue Code, 1959 by recording a finding which is perverse and contrary to record ?â€​

[For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown and nomenclature in the suit before the trial Court].

The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction stating interÂalia that he is titleÂholder of the land bearing Khasra No.153

area 0.030 hectare and order of the SubÂDivisional Officer, Surguja dated 25.5.2001 and order of the Colletor, Surguja dated 22.2.2002 are illegal and

void. It has been further pleaded that he is owner and titleÂholder of the land bearing Khasra Nos.152, 153 and 155 area and in Khasra No.153 which

is 0.030 hectare he is in possession for last 25 years. In a proceeding initiated by defendant No.1ÂDhanrajiya under Section 170ÂB of the

Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter called as “the Codeâ€) the SubÂDivisional Officer, Surguja by order dated 25.5.2001 directed

for reversion of the defendant's land holding that the plaintiff has constructed the house on the land bearing Khasra No.154/1 area 0.029 hectare,

which has been affirmed by the Collector, Surguja, which has been done without hearing the plaintiff and without noticing him, which was opposed by

defendant No.1 by filing written statement.

The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment and decree dated 30.4.2005, dismissed the

suit holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove his title over the suit land, but also declared the suit to be barred by the provisions contained in Section

257 (lÂ1) of the Code. On appeal being preferred by the plaintiff, the first appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court, against

which, the plaintiff preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, in which one substantial question of law has been formulated by this

Court, which has been setÂ​out in opening paragraph of this judgment for sake of completeness.

Mr.Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for legal representatives of the appellant / plaintiff, would submit that both the Courts below have

committed legal error in dismissing the suit to be barred by the provisions contained in Section 257(lÂ1) of the Code. He would rely upon the judgment

passed by this Court in the matter of Rameshwar Ram and Ors. v. Dwarikaram and Ors. 2017(2)CGLJ 146.

None for respondent No.1/Defendant No.1 as Dhanrajiya has died and her name has been deleted as she has no legal representatives.

The issue with regard to the order passed under Section 170ÂB of the Code the Code, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section

257(lÂ​1) of the Code cameÂ​up for consideration before this Court in Rameshwar Ram (supra), in which this Court held as under:Â​

“18. In view of the aforesaid analysis, firstly it is held that the provision contained in Section 257 (LÂ1) barring the matter covered under Section

170ÂB of the Code came into force w.e.f. 15.12.1995, whereas the suit was filed on 18.8.1994 challenging the order passed by the SubÂDivisional

Officer (Revenue), Jashpurnagar dated 15.6.1994. The express bar was not applicable on the date of institution of suit. Secondly, the Civil Court has

jurisdiction to entertain and consider the matter covered by the provisions contained in Section 257 (LÂ1) of the Code to the extent whether the

revenue authority has complied with the procedure prescribed or not while holding an enquiry and passing the order, but the Civil Court has limited

jurisdiction as laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Dhulabhai (supra).â€​

From the aforesaid proposition, it is quite apparent that jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not completely barred and to certain level as indicated above

the Civil Court can look into whether while passing the impugned order the principle of natural justice has been followed or not and whether enquiry

has been conducted in accordance with law or not.

In that view of the matter, the judgment and decree of both the Courts below to the extent of holding the jurisdiction to be barred is hereby setÂ‐

aside. Since both the Courts below have held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction and the suit is barred by the provisions contained in Section 257

(lÂ1) of the Code, it could not have recorded a finding on merits. Civil suit is now remanded to the trial Court for adjudication afresh in accordance

with law. Civil Suit will be tried and completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order as the matter is of old one.

The second appeal is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No cost(s).