STATE OF M.P. versus GHISILAL on 22 November 2021

[2021] 10 S.C.R. 1178

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2021] 10 S.C.R.

A

STATE OF M.P.

v.

GHISILAL

(Civil Appeal No. 2153 of 2012)

NOVEMBER 22, 2021

B

[R. SUBHASH REDDY AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976: ss. 10(1),(3) – Land in the urban agglomeration – Declaration of surplusland – Jurisdiction of civil court – Held: In view of provisions ofappeal, revision before the designated appellate and revisionalCauthorities available for aggrieved parties under the Act, thejurisdiction of the civil courts to try suit relating to land which issubject-matter of ceiling proceedings, stands excluded by implication– Civil court cannot declare, orders passed by the authorities underthe Act as illegal or non est – On facts, orders passed by theDcompetent authorities, that the original declarant was holding excessland and the consequential notifications issued u/s. 10(1), (3) havebecome final, it was not open for the respondent to file a suit seekingdeclaration – Trial court erred in entertaining the suit, as filed bythe respondent and even the first appellate court and secondappellate court have not considered the various grounds raised byEthe appellant in proper perspective – Thus, the order passed by thetrial court as upheld by the appellate court, set aside.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The land in question is in the UrbanAgglomeration and covered by the Urban Land (Ceiling andFRegulation) Act, 1976. As such, original owner late PS had fileddeclaration under the provisions of the ULC Act and afterconducting necessary inquiry, final orders were passed by thecompetent authority declaring 16000.32 square meters of landas surplus land. It is also clear from the material placed on recordthat consequent to final orders passed by the competent authority,Gnotifications under Section 10(1) and 10(3) of the ULC Act wereissued. Although, it is the case of the respondent - plaintiff thatpossession was taken without issuing notice, as such it cannotbe considered as valid taking over of possession, but it is evidentfrom the copy of the panchnama, the respondent, who claims to H

be the legal heir of late PS, is also a signatory as a witness to thesame. Though the respondent - plaintiff was a witness to thepanchnama for taking over possession, a belated attempt wasmade by filing the present suit by the respondent without evenquestioning the orders passed by the competent authority underthe Act, declaring the land in question as a surplus land. The trialcourt as well as appellate court fell in error in recording a findingthat possession was not taken, inspite of taking possession byconducting panchnama for which respondent is a signatory. Inview of the stand of the appellant, of taking over possession ofthe land by conducting panchnama for which respondent is asignatory, it is difficult to believe the stand of the respondentthat possession was not taken. In view of the stand of therespondent that possession is with the respondent, this Courtcalled for a report from the District Judge. Pursuant to the same,report dated 14.04.2021 was sent by the Principal District andSessions Judge, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh to this Court. It isevident from such report that the appellant has taken possessionof the land and the same was allotted to the Bhopal DevelopmentAuthority and the same was utilised for construction of about400 houses for needy slum dwellers by spending huge amount.Thus, it is clear that possession of the land was not only takenbut same is utilised for a public purpose. [Para 13][1184-F-G;1085-A-F]

1.2 The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 isa self-contained Code. Various provisions of the Act make it clearthat if any orders are passed by the competent authority, there isprovision for appeal, revision before the designated appellateand revisional authorities. In view of such remedies available foraggrieved parties, the jurisdiction of the civil courts to try suitrelating to land which is subject-matter of ceiling proceedings,stands excluded by implication. Civil court cannot declare, orderspassed by the authorities under the ULC Act, as illegal or nonest. More so, when such orders have become final, no declarationcould have been granted by the civil court. [Para 14][1185-F-H;1186-A]

1.3 It is clear from the orders passed by the competentauthorities, that the original declarant was holding excess landto the extent of 16000.32 square meters. When the orders passedby the competent authority and consequential notifications issued AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aunder Section 10(1) and 10(3) of the ULC Act have become final,it was not open for the respondent to file a suit seekingdeclaration, as prayed for. As the jurisdiction of the civil courts isbarred by necessary implication, trial court fell in error inentertaining the suit, as filed by the respondent and even thefirst appellate court and second appellate court have notBconsidered the various grounds raised by the appellant in properperspective. [Para 15][1186-B-D]

1.4 The judgment and decree in Civil Suit as confirmed bythe first appellate Court and the High Court, is set aside.Consequently, the suit filed by the respondent is dismissed.C[Para 17][1186-F-G]

Competent Authority, Calcutta, under the Urban Land(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and another v. DavidMantosh and others (2020) 12 SCC 542:[2019] 4 SCR331 – relied on.

D

State of Assam v. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma and others (2015)5 SCC 321 : [2014] 14 SCR 1451; Indore DevelopmentAuthority v. Manoharlal and others (2020) 8 SCC 129: [2020] 3 SCR 1; Vidya Devi v. State of HimachalPradesh and others (2020) 2 SCC 569; Mangalsen v.EState of Uttar Pradesh and another (2014) 15 SCC 332;Gaiv Dinshaw Irani and others v. Tehmtan Irani andothers (2014) 8 SCC 294 : [2014] 5 SCR 646; State ofUttar Pradesh v. Hari Ram (2013) 4 SCC 280 : [2013]2 SCR 301 – referred to.

F

Case Law Reference

H

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2153of 2012.

From the Judgment and Order dated 08.11.2006 of the High Courtof Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Second Appeal No. 129 of 2006.

Saurabh Mishra, AAG, Aakash Nadolia, Sunny Choudhary, Advs.for the Appellant.

Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Adv. for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.

1. This Civil Appeal is preferred by the appellant - State of MadhyaPradesh, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 08.11.2006 passedin Second Appeal No.129 of 2006. By the aforesaid order, the HighCourt has dismissed the Second Appeal, preferred by the appellant hereinconfirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned IV AdditionalDistrict Judge, Bhopal, in Civil Appeal No.37-A/2005 dated 23.07.2005and the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2004 passed by the learnedXIIth Civil Judge, Class - II, Bhopal, in Civil Suit No.138-A/2004.

2. Necessary facts, in brief, are as under:

2. Necessary facts, in brief, are as under:

3. The agricultural land bearing Survey Nos.171 to 184, 214, 217and 284 admeasuring 17.18 acres situated at Village Bag Sevania, TehsilHuzur, District Bhopal, was recorded in the name of Late Padam Singhas a Bhoomi Swami. In the aforesaid land, late Padam Singh was having1/4[th] share. As the said land was covered by the Urban Land (Ceilingand Regulation) Act, 1976 (for convenience sake, hereinafter referredto as ‘ULC Act’), late Padam Singh has filed declaration as contemplatedunder the provisions of the ULC Act. The competent authority hasdetermined an extent of 16000.32 square meters of land as vacant landand the same was declared surplus. Consequent to passing of final ordersby the competent authority, a notification under Section 10(1) of theULC Act was issued on 16.09.1983 and the notification as contemplatedunder Section 10(3) of the ULC Act was published in the Madhya PradeshGazette, Part - III dated 20.01.1984.

4. It is the case of the appellant herein that after following thenecessary procedure contemplated under the ULC Act, possession ofthe surplus land was taken. Thereafter, the revenue entries were corrected A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

Ashowing the State as owner to the extent of the surplus land declared bythe competent authority. It is also the case of the appellant that as thepossession was already taken prior to coming into force of the UrbanLand (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 (for convenience sake,hereinafter referred to as ‘Repeal Act’), the said land was allotted forthe purpose of constructing dwelling houses to the poor.B

5. The respondent herein had filed suit for declaration andpermanent injunction on 09.09.2003, claiming himself to be the sole heirand adopted son of Late Padam Singh. The relief in the suit reads asunder:

C“1) That the surplus land of 16000.32 square meters which hasbeen declared surplus, declaration be exempted under the UrbanLand (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 because possession hasnot been taken.

2) That the defendant be restrained from interfering with theDpossession of the respondent.”

6. The Trial Court i.e., XII Civil Judge, Class - II, Bhopal, by thejudgment and decree dated 24.12.2004, decreed the suit on the groundthat possession has not been taken, before the Repeal Act has come intoforce. Trial court also granted consequential relief restraining the appellantEherein from interfering with the possession of the respondent. As againstthe judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the matter was carriedby way of first appeal, by the appellant, before the IV Additional DistrictJudge, Bhopal and the Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal by thejudgment and decree dated 23.07.2005. As against the same, the appellanthas carried the matter by way of Second Appeal before the High Court.FThe Second Appeal is also dismissed by the impugned judgment anddecree dated 08.11.2006.

7. The aforesaid impugned judgment is questioned in this appealmainly on the ground that after necessary notifications were issued underSection 10 of the ULC Act, appellant has taken possession and utilisedGthe subject land for construction of houses for the poor by spendinghuge amounts. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent has notquestioned the orders passed by the competent authority declaring theland as surplus land, it is not open to seek declaration by the respondent- plaintiff as prayed for. A specific ground was raised in the grounds ofappeal that after taking possession, land was recorded in the name ofH

the Government and the surplus land was allotted to Bhopal DevelopmentAuthority for the benefit of slum dwellers and the said Authority hasalready constructed 100 (hundred) houses on the land by spending aboutRs.1.50 Crores by the time the appeal was preferred to this Court. It isalso the case of the appellant that relief as sought in the suit is a belatedattempt, though such suit is not maintainable in law.

8. We have heard Mr. Saurabh Mishra, learned AdditionalAdvocate General appearing for the appellant - State, and Mrs. PragatiNeekhra, learned counsel for the respondent, at length.

9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant thatthough the suit as framed is not maintainable at all, the Courts belowhave not only entertained the suit but also granted decree contrary to thevarious orders and notifications issued under the provisions of the ULCAct, 1976. It is submitted that when possession was already taken andthe land is recorded in the name of the Government, trial court haserroneously decreed the suit of the respondent and confirmed on appealon the premise that possession is not taken. It is submitted that in fact,not only possession of the subject land is taken and recorded in the nameof the Government, but the same is also allotted to the BhopalDevelopment Authority for construction of houses for the poor andsubstantial amount is spent for construction of houses. It is submittedthat in any event, the declaration as prayed for, is not at all maintainablewhen the orders passed by the competent authority have become finaland possession of the land was taken prior to coming into force of theRepeal Act. The learned counsel for the appellant, in support of hisarguments, has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in thecases of State of Assam v. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma and others[1], IndoreDevelopment Authority v. Manoharlal and others[2]and CompetentAuthority, Calcutta, under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)Act, 1976 and another v. David Mantosh and others[3].

10. On the other hand, Mrs. Pragati Neekhra, learned counsel forthe respondent, has vehemently opposed the case of the appellant andsubmitted that when the original declarant died before possession is taken,without issuing any fresh notice to the only legal heir of the originaldeclarant, it was not open to the appellant authorities to take possession 1 (2015) 5 SCC 321

2 (2020) 8 SCC 129

3 (2020) 12 SCC 542

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aconsequent to the orders passed under the ULC Act. It is submitted thatin any event, if the suit filed as prayed for is not maintainable, this Courtmay mould the relief by issuing appropriate directions. The learned counsel,in support of her arguments, has placed reliance on the judgments of thisCourt in the cases of Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh andothers[4], Mangalsen v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another[5], GaivBDinshaw Irani and others v. Tehmtan Irani and others[6]and State ofUttar Pradesh v. Hari Ram[7].

11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we haveperused the impugned judgment and other material placed on record.

C12. As evident from the copy of the plaint, which is placed onrecord, the respondent filed the suit for declaration and permanentinjunction. The prayer in the suit reads as under:

“(A) A decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against thedefendant to the effect that 16000.32 square meters of surplusDdeclared land out of the disputed land of the ownership of theplaintiff the description whereof has been given in Para 1 is freefrom the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 because thepossession whereof was not received by the government till thedate the Repeal Act became effective.

E(B) A permanent injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiffand against the defendant thereby directing the defendant not tointerfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff.”

13. It is not in dispute that the land in question is in the UrbanAgglomeration and covered by the ULC Act, 1976. As such, originalowner late Padam Singh has filed declaration under the provisions of theFULC Act and after conducting necessary inquiry, final orders were passedby the competent authority declaring 16000.32 square meters of land assurplus land. It is also clear from the material placed on record thatconsequent to final orders passed by the competent authority, notificationsunder Section 10(1) and 10(3) of the ULC Act were issued. Although, itGis the case of the respondent - plaintiff that possession was taken withoutissuing notice, as such it cannot be considered as valid taking over of 4 (2020) 2 SCC 5695 (2014) 15 SCC 3326 (2014) 8 SCC 294H7 (2013) 4 SCC 280

possession, but it is evident from the copy of the panchnama, therespondent, who claims to be the legal heir of late Padam Singh, is alsoa signatory as a witness to the same. Though the respondent - plaintiffwas a witness to the panchnama for taking over possession, a belatedattempt was made by filing the present suit by the respondent withouteven questioning the orders passed by the competent authority underthe Act, declaring the land in question as a surplus land. The trial courtas well as appellate court fell in error in recording a finding that possessionwas not taken, inspite of taking possession by conducting panchnamafor which respondent is a signatory. In the judgment relied on by thelearned counsel for the appellant in the case of Indore DevelopmentAuthority[2], this Court while dealing with the provisions of the LandAcquisition Act has held that when the possession of the land is taken bydrawing a panchnama, that amounts to taking physical possession ofthe land. It is further held that anybody claiming possession thereafterhas to be treated as a trespasser and has no right to possess the landwhich vests with the State free from all encumbrances. In view of thestand of the appellant, of taking over possession of the land by conductingpanchnama for which respondent is a signatory, it is difficult to believethe stand of the respondent that possession was not taken. In view ofthe stand of the respondent that possession is with the respondent, thisCourt called for a report from the District Judge. Pursuant to the same,report dated 14.04.2021 was sent by the learned Principal District andSessions Judge, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh to this Court. It is evidentfrom such report that the appellant has taken possession of the land andthe same was allotted to the Bhopal Development Authority and thesame was utilised for construction of about 400 houses for needy slumdwellers by spending huge amount. Thus, it is clear that possession ofthe land was not only taken but same is utilised for a public purpose.

14. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is a self-contained Code. Various provisions of the Act make it clear that if anyorders are passed by the competent authority, there is provision for appeal,revision before the designated appellate and revisional authorities. Inview of such remedies available for aggrieved parties, the jurisdiction ofthe civil courts to try suit relating to land which is subject-matter ofceiling proceedings, stands excluded by implication. Civil court cannotdeclare, orders passed by the authorities under the ULC Act, as illegalor non est. More so, when such orders have become final, no declarationcould have been granted by the civil court. In this regard reference may AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Abe made to the judgment of this Court in the case of CompetentAuthority, Calcutta, under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)Act, 1976[3]. We are totally in agreement with the aforesaid view takenby this Court.

15. In this case, it is clear from the orders passed by the competentauthorities, that the original declarant was holding excess land to theBextent of 16000.32 square meters. When the orders passed by thecompetent authority and consequential notifications issued under Section10(1) and 10(3) of the ULC Act have become final, it was not open forthe respondent to file a suit seeking declaration, as prayed for. As weare of the view that jurisdiction of the civil courts is barred by necessaryCimplication, trial court fell in error in entertaining the suit, as filed by therespondent and even the first appellate court and second appellate courthave not considered the various grounds raised by the appellant in properperspective.

16. Although it is contended by the learned counsel appearing forthe respondent to mould the relief, it is trite principle that where the suitDis filed with particular pleadings and reliefs, it is to be considered withreference to pleadings on record and the reliefs claimed in the suit only.The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent wouldnot render any assistance to support the case of the respondent. As weare in agreement with the view taken by this Court earlier in the case ofECompetent Authority, Calcutta, under the Urban Land (Ceiling andRegulation) Act, 1976[3 ]this appeal is to be allowed by setting aside thejudgment and decree passed by the trial court as confirmed by the appellatecourt on the ground that such suit itself was not maintainable.

17. For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Appeal is allowed. Theimpugned judgment and decree dated 24.12.2004 in Civil Suit No.138-FA/2004 passed by the learned XII Civil Judge, Class - II, Bhopal, asconfirmed by the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated23.07.2005 in Civil Appeal No.37-A/2005 and the High Court videjudgment and order dated 08.11.2006 in S.A. No.129 of 2006, is setaside. Consequently, the suit filed by the respondent before the learnedGXII Civil Judge, Class-II, Bhopal stands dismissed, with no order as tocosts.

HNidhi Jain