Appeal No 1228 of 1966
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated December 2 1965 of the Punjab High Court Circuit Bench at Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal No 57 D of 1965
C B Agarwala and P P Juneja for the appellant
Sardari Lal Bhatia D R Gupta and H K Puri for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bhargava J
The appellant Hatti was declared a Bhumidar of some land belonging to the respondent Sunder Singh under section 13 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act No 8 of 1954 hereinafter referred to as the Act
The respondent then brought a suit in the Civil Court claiming three reliefs
The first relief claimed was for a declaration that the declaration of Bhumidari issued in the name of the appellant with respect to the land in dispute was wrong illegal without jurisdiction ultra vires void and ineffective against the respondent
The second relief was that the respondent be declared entitled to Bhumidari rights under section 11 of the Act and the third relief was for possession of the land
The suit was brought on the allegation that the respondent was the owner of the land while the appellant had no rights in it
The land along with some other land was on Mustrajri with one Sultan Singh for a period of 20 years ending in June 1952 and the appellant had been admitted as a tenant at will by the Mustrajar
On the expiry of the period of 20 years in June 1952 the Mustrajri stood terminated and the original Mustrajar s heirs left the land
The appellant however continued in possession but since he was a tenant at will of the Mustrajar he had no rights in the land after the expiry of the Mustrajri
He was asked to surrender possession but failed to do so
On the other hand he was wrongly granted the declaration under section 13 of the Act that he was a Bhumidar when he had no rights as tenant in the land at all
The main defence taken on behalf of the appellant was that he was a non occupancy tenant and he was entitled to the declaration of his Bhumidari rights
Apart from the issues on merits one issue was raised by the appellant that the Civil Court bad no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the provisions 165 of section 185 of the Act
The trial Court held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not barred
On merits the finding recorded was that the respondent was the proprietor of the land but no declaration could be granted that he became Bhumidar under section 11 of the Act as that relief could only be granted by the revenue authorities under the Act
It was held that he was however entitled to possession in exercise of his right as proprietor so that a decree for possession was granted in his favour
That decree was upheld in appeal by the District Judge and in second appeal by a learned single Judge of the High Court of Punjab
The Letters Patent appeal before the Division Bench was also dismissed so that the appellant has now come up to this Court in this appeal by special leave
The only point that was argued before the Division Bench in the Letters Patent appeal was that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit so that in this appeal we are also concerned with this issue alone
Section 1851 of the Act on which reliance has been placed for urging that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction is as follows  185
1 Except as provided by or under this Act no court other than a court mentioned in column 7 of Schedule 1 shall notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 take cognizance of any suit application or proceedings mentioned in column 3 thereof
 The relevant entries in the First Schedule which require consideration are Numbers 4 19 and 28
Item 4 mentions applications for declaration of Bhumidari rights in column 3 and inter alia refers to sections 1 1 and 1 3 of the Act
For these applications there is no period of limitation prescribed at all and the Court of original jurisdiction is that of the Revenue Assistant
Item 19 refers to section 84 of the Act and relates to suit for ejectment of a person occupying land without title and for damages
The three sub clauses mention that the suit can be instituted i by a Bhumidar declared under Chapter III of the Act or by an Asami falling under section 6 of the Act where such unlawful occupant was in possession of the land before the issue of the prescribed declaration form ii by a Gaon Sabha where the unlawful occupant was in possession of the land before the constitution of Gaon Panchayat and iii by a Bhumidar Asami or Gaon Sabha in any other case
The period of limitation is three years in the first case from the date of issue of the prescribed declaration form in the second case from the date of constitution of Gaon Panchayat under section 151 and in the third case from the 1st of July following the date of occupation
The 166 Court of original jurisdiction in each case is that of the Revenue Assistant
Item 28 refers to section 104 and relates to declaratory suit under that section
No period of limitation is prescribed for such a suit and the Court of original jurisdiction is again the Revenue Assistant
The plea put forward on behalf of the appellant was that this suit which was instituted by the respondent covered only those reliefs which could be granted by the Revenue Assistant under the three items Nos 4 19 and 28 of the First Schedule to the Act mentioned above so that by virtue of section 185 of the Act the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred
The High Court has taken the view that the suit is really in the nature of a title suit and such a title suit is not covered by these items so that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not barred
It is this view of the High Court that has been challenged before us in this appeal
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant took us through the various provisions of the Act to show that the Act is a complete Code which lays down the rights that any person can possess in agricultural land in the area to which the Act applies and the remedies that can be sought in respect of such land for obtaining declaration of their rights or any other declaration for possession
The Act abolished the ownership of agricultural land by the previous proprietors
This was effected by first laying down in sections 11 and 13 that proprietors will become Bhumidars in respect of their lands which were their Khud Kasht or Sir while tenants would become Bhumidars in respect of their holdings
Under section 6 of the Act persons belonging to several classes which included non occupancy tenants of proprietor s grove and sub tenants of tenant s grove and non occupancy tenants of pasture land or of land covered by water and some other classes shall become Asamis
Holding was defined in section 311a of the Act by stating that it means a in respect of i Bhumidar or Asami or iitenant or sub tenant under the Punjab Tenancy Act 1887 or the Agra Tenancy Act 1901 or iiilessee under the Bhoodan Yagna Act 1955 a parcel or parcels of land held under one tenure lease engagement or grant and b in respect of proprietors a parcel or parcels of land held as sir or khud kasht
The effect of sections 6 and 13 was that thereafter tenants and sub tenants are lessees under the Bhoodan Yagna Act 1955 167 ceased to continue as such and either became Bhumidars or Asamis in respect of their holdings
Similarly under section 11 proprietors in respect of their sir and khud kasht land became Bhumidars
These sections have to be read in conjunction with section 154 of the Act of which the relevant portion is quoted below  154
On the commencement of this Act i all lands whether cultivable or otherwise except land for the time being comprised in any holding or grove situate in a Gaon Sabha Area shall vest in the Gaon Sabha Sections 6 11 13 and 154 of the Act read together thus show that after the Act came into force proprietors of agricultural land as such ceased to exist
If any land was part of a holding of a proprietor he became a Bhumidar of it
If it was part of a holding of some other person such as a tenant or a sub tenant etc he became either a Bhumidar or an Asami whereupon the rights of the proprietor in that land ceased
Lands which were not holdings of either the proprietor or any other person vested in the Gaon Sabha
In the case of proprietors their rights in the land continued to exist only in respect of holdings which under the definition must have been either their sir or khud kasht at the commencement of the Act
If it was not sir or khud kasht of a proprietor it would not be his holding and consequently such land would vest in the Gaon Sabha under section 154 the result of which would be that the rights of the proprietor would be extinguished
It appears that it was in view of this scheme of the Act that under section 84 the right to institute a suit for posses sion was granted only to a Bhumidar or an Asami or the Gaon Sabha
The Act envisaged only these three classes of persons who would possess rights in agricultural I and after the commencement of the Act
Proprietors as such having ceased to exist could not therefore institute a suit for possession
This aspect of the case has been lost sight of by the High Court and the lower courts because it appears that their attention was not drawn to the provisions of section 154 of the Act under which all lands of proprie tors other than those comprised in their holdings vested in the Gaon Sabha thus extinguishing their proprietary rights
168 A second aspect that needs examination relates to the provi sions of the Act for declaration of Bhumidari rights
Sections 11 and 13 grant power to the Deputy Commissioner to declare proprietors in respect of their holdings and certain classes of tenants in respect of their holdings as Bhumidars
The procedure to be adopted for issuing the declaration forms was laid down in the Delhi Land Reforms Rules 1954 hereinafter referred to as the Rules made by the Chief Commissioner of Delhi in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 9 105 149 162 180 and 191 of the Act
The relevant Rules are 6 to 8
These Rules envisaged preparation of declaration forms by the revenue authorities without any application from any party
The declaration forms are based on the entries in the revenue records and having been prepared on their basis the declaration forms are issued to the persons who under the forms are held to be entitled to
be declared as Bhumidars
These Rules thus do not envisage any application under section 11 of section 13 at this early stage
Rule 84 lays down that anyone who challenges the correctness of entries in the forms of declaration shall except where it refers to a clerical omission or error be directed by the Revenue Assistant to file a regular suit within two months of the date of issue
Obviously this sub rule has to be interpreted in conformity with section 185 and item 4 of the First Schedule to the Act so that the scope of this sub rule must be confined to institution of suits in respect of matters not covered by item 4 of the First Schedule
This sub rule would not stand in the way of an application being made by any person claiming to be Bhumidar under item 4 of the First Schedule
The Rules were examined by Khanna J in Lal Singh vs Sardara and Another1 and in our opinion he rightly held that a perusal of the Rules goes to show that there is no provision for giving notice to different interested parties before a declaration of Bhumidari rights is made and the whole thing is done in more or less a mechanical way
That being the position it becomes obvious that an application for declaration of a Bhumidari right under item 4 of Schedule I of the Act is intended to be made even in cases where a declaration may have been previously granted under section 11 or section 13 in accordance with the Rules
The scheme of the Act appears to be that initially a declaration of Bhumidari right can be granted under section 11 or section 13 without calling for objections and without hearing contesting parties in favour of the person who appears to the revenue authorities to be entitled to the declaration on the basis of the records maintained by them
Thereafter any person aggrieved and claiming Bhumidari rights is expected to move an application before the Revenue Assistant 1
ILR 1964 Vol 169 who is to adjudicate upon the rights after following the usual judicial procedure
The order made by the Revenue Assistant in such a proceeding will then have to be given effect to and would override the declarations earlier issued in accordance with the Rules
This shows that any person who is aggrieved by a declaration of Bhumidari right issued in favour of another person can appropriately seek his remedy by moving an application before the Revenue Assistant under item 4 of the First Schedule whereupon if he succeeds he will obtain a declaration that he is the Bhumi dar
Such a declaration will automatically supersede the declaration issued by the authorities in accordance with the Rules without any adjudication of rights and without notice to interested parties
Khanna J in the case of Lai Singh vs Sardara  Another1 correctly interpreted the scope and purpose of the Rules under which forms of declaration of Bhumidari rights are issued but in our opinion incorrectly inferred that since there is no effectual adjudication of rights by the revenue authorities while declaring Bhumidari rights their declaration must be subject to the due adjudication of rights which in the absence of anything to the contrary can only be by a Civil Court
It is true that the declarations made by the revenue authorities without going through the judicial procedure are subject to due adjudication of rights but such adjudication must be by an application under item 4 of Schedule I and not by approach to the Civil Court
The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is clearly barred by section 185 of the Act read with the various items of the First Schedule mentioned above
If a Bhumidar seeks a declaration of his right he has to approach the Revenue Assistant by an application under item 4 while if a Gaon Sabha wants a clarification in respect of any person claiming to be entitled to any right in any land it can institute a suit for a declaration under item 28 and the Revenue Assistant can make a declaration of the right of such person
So far as suits for possession are concerned we have already held earlier that section 84 read with item 19 of the First Schedule gives the jurisdiction to the Revenue Assistant to grant decree for possession and that the suit for possession in respect of agricultural land after the commencement of the Act can only be insti tuted either by a Bhumidar or an Asami or the Gaon Sabha
There can be no suit by any person claiming to be a proprietor because the Act does not envisage a proprietor as such continuing to have rights after the commencement of the Act
The First Schedule and section 84 of the Act provide full remedy for suit for possession to persons who can hold rights in agricultural land under the Act
1 ILR 1964 Vol
2 L235Sup
CI71 170 The High Court in this connection referred to section 186 of the Act under which any question raised regarding the title of any party to the land which is the subject matter of a suit or proceeding under the First Schedule has to be referred by the Revenue Court to the competent Civil Court for decision after framing an issue on that question
Inference was sought to be drawn from this provision that questions of title could be competently agitated by a suit in the Civil Court as the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not barred
It appears to us that there is no justification for drawing such an inference
On the contrary section 186 envisages that questions of title will arise before the Revenue Courts in suits or proceedings under the First Schedule and only if such a question arises in a competent proceeding pending in a revenue Court an issue will be framed and referred to the Civil Court
Such a provision does not give jurisdiction to the Civil Court to entertain the suit itself on a question of title
The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is limited to deciding the issue of title referred to it by the Revenue Court
This clearly implies that if a question of title is raised in an application for declaration of Bhumidari rights under item 4 of Schedule I of the Act that question will then be referred by the Revenue Assistant to the Civil Court but a party wanting to raise such a question of title in order to claim Bhumidari right cannot directly approach the Civil Court
The Act is a complete Code under which it is clear that any one wanting a declaration of his right as a Bhumidar or aggrieved by a declaration issued without notice to him in favour of another can approach the Revenue Assistant under item 4 of the First Schedule and this he is allowed to do without any period of limitation because he may not be aware of the fact that a declaration has been issued in respect of his holding in favour of another
A declaration by a Gaon Sabha of the right of any person can also be sought without any period of limitation
If there is dispute as to possession of agricultural land the remedy has to be sought under section 84 read with item 19 of the First Schedule
All the reliefs claimed by the respondent in the present suit were thus within the competent jurisdiction of the Revenue Assistant and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit
In the result the appeal is allowed the decree passed by the High Court is set aside and the suit of the respondent is dismissed
The appellant will be entitled to his costs in this Court while costs in other Courts will be borne by the parties themselves
YP Appeal allowed


Summary:
Under section 13 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 tenant was declared bhumidhar of land belonging to the respondent filed a suit in the Civil Court claiming that issued to the appellant was illegal that he should instead bhumidhar and prayed for possession of the land
Apart on merits the appellant raised the issue that the Civil jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the bar in section The trial court held that the jurisdiction of civil court was the appellant a respondent
The the bhumidhari be declared the from the issues Court had no 185 of the Act
not barred and decreed the suit
The decree was upheld in appeal by the District Judge
and in second appeal by a single Judge of the High Court
The Letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed
Allowing the appeal this Court HELD  i The reliefs claimed by the respondent were within the competent jurisdiction of the Revenue Assistant and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit
Under section 84 the right to institute a suit for possession was granted only to a bhumidar or an asami or the gaon sabha
The Act envisaged only these three classes of persons who would possess rights in agricultural land after the commencement of the Act
Proprietors as such having ceased to exist could not therefore institute a suit for possession
This aspect of the case has been lost sight of by the High Court and the lower courts because it appears that their attention was not drawn to the provision of section 154 of the Act under which all lands of proprietors other than those comprised in their holdings vested in the gaon sabha thus extinguishing their proprietary rights
 1 67 G H iiThere is no provision in the rules for giving notice to different interested parties before a declaration of bhumidari rights is made Any person who is aggrieved by a declaration of bhumidhari right issued in favour of another person can appropriately seek his remedy by moving an application before the Revenue Assistant under item 4 of the First Schedule whereupon if he succeeds he will obtain a declaration that he is the Bhumidar
Such a declaration will automatically supersede the declaration issued by the authorities in accordance with the Rules without any adjudication of rights and without notice to interested parties 169 B Lai Singh vs Sardara  Anr
ILR 1964 Vol
17 2 Pb
428 referred to
iiiIt is true that the declarations made by the revenue authorities without going through the judicial procedure are subject to due adjudication of rights but such adjudication must be by an application under item 4 of Sch
I and not by approach to the civil court
The jurisdiction of the civil court is already barred by section 185 of the Act read with various items of the first Schedule 169 D E The inference contra in Lal Singh vs Sardara  Anr
ILR 1964 Vol
17 disapproved
164 ivSection 186 only envisages that question of title will arise before the Revenue Courts in suits or proceedings under the first schedule and only if such a question arises in a competent proceeding pending in a Revenue Court an issue will be framed and referred to the civil court
Such a provision does not give jurisdiction to the Civil Court to entertain the suit itself on a question of title
170 B C