k? ^' HIQH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Chrit Revision No. 97 of 2004 c; Samu Vs. The State ofChhattisgarh & others Post for pronouncement ofjudgment and wders on z2- /03/2010. Sd/- . N. K. Agarwal Judge :0 -Bs-aj,^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Applicant/ Plaintiff Respondents/ Defendants Civil Revision No. 97 of 2004 Samu, son of Shri Sonsai, Caste Bhatra, aged about 60 years, resident of Village Sargipal, Jagdalpur, District Bastar. Versus 1. The State of Chhattisgarh through Dlstrict Magistrate, Bastar, Jagdalpur. 2. The Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, District Bastar. 3. The Additional Collector, District Bastar. 4. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jagdalpur. 5. Smt. Butki Bai, wife of Shri Mangluram, Adult, resident of Village Titirgaon, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar. 6. Damodar, son of Shri Dhaniyasundi, Adult, resident of village Rajnagar, Jagdalpur, Bastar. Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1 908 (Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal, J.l Present : Shri Prafull Bharat, Advocate for applicant. Shri Sameer Behar, Panel Lawyerfor State/respondent No. 1to4. Shri Akhilesh Mishra, Advocate for respondent No. 5. None for respondent No. 6. ORDER (Passed on^^day of March, 2010) 1. Legality and proprietary of the order dated 04.10.2002 passed by the llnd Civil Judge, Classll, Jagdalpur, in Civil Suit No. 52-A/02 and affirmed by the Ist Additional Distrtet Judge, Bastar at ••,•':'.?fyw:.. I 1 Jagdalpur, vide its order dated 16.02.2004 in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 8/02, dismissing the applicant's/plaintiffs suit holding it as not maintainable, is under assail in the instant revision. 2. The facts, in nutshell are as under: i. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jagdalpur, passed the order under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), reverting the suit land in favour of respondent No. 5. The respondent No. 2 and 3 affirmed the said order in appeal and revision preferred by the applicant. ii. The applicant fietd a civil suit being No. 52-A/2002 before the llnd Civil Judge, Class II, Jagdalpur, seeking relief of declaration of his titte over the suit property; declaration to the effect that the order passed by the respondent No. 2,3 & 4 are illegal, void and not binding upon the plaintiff; and possession of the suit property from the respondent No. 5. iii. In the written stetement filed by the respondent No. 5, a plea of non maintainability of the sutt was taken. Issue to that effect was framed and case was flxed for evidence. iv. At this stage, the respondent No. 5 fietd an application for dismissal of the suit on the ground that the suit in view of specific bar under Section 257 (1-1) of the Code, is not maintainable. Reply was flled. Vide order dated 04.10.02, the suit was dismissed being barred under Section 257 (1-1) of the Code. The said order was afflrmed in appeal preferred by the applicant. Hence this revision. 3. Shri Prafutl Bharat, learned counsel appearing fpr the applicant, by placing its reliance upon the judgment passed in case of ^tCSiXS „&>, 6. 7. Dhumaniya vs. Harisingh & Others would submit that the order passed by both the courts below is patently illegal and without jurisdiction inasmuch as the order passed by the respondent No. 4 under Section 170-B of the Code and affirmed by the respondent No. 2 & 3 has been passed without Tollowing the procedure prescribed therefor. Under Section 9 of CPC, the civll court have jurisdiction to try atl suits of civil nature excepting suit of which their cognizance is either expressly or imptiedly barred. In the present case, looking to the averments in the plaint and the relief claimed, it cannot be said that the suit is expressly or impliedty barred under Section 257 (1-1) ofthe Code. On the other hand, Shri Akhllesh Mishra, learned counsel appearing Tor respondent No. 5 and Shri Sameer Behar, Panel Lawyer for the State supported the orders and submttted that the order passed by both the courts below is based on settled principal of law and deserves to be upheld. 1 have heard the counsel appearing for the parties, perused the orders impugned and records of both the courts below. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by Shri Bharat, it would be appropriate to refer the retevant provisions of the Code which reads as under: "257. Exclusive jurisdiction of revenue authorities- Except as otherwise provided in this Code, or in any other enactment for the time bring in force, no Civil Court shalt entertain any suit instituted or application made to obtain a decision or order on any matter which the State Govemment, the Board or any Revenue Officer is by this Code, empowered to determine, decide or dispose of, and in particular and wittiout 1 tf*."> 2001 Revenue Nimay 85 c\ prejudice to the generality of this provision, no Civil Court shall exereise jurisdiction over any of the following matters: (a) any decision regarding the purpose to which land is appropriated under Section 59; XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX (1-1) any matter covered under Section 170-B" 8. A bare perusal of aforesaid provision would reveat that any matter covered under Section 170-B ofthe Code is exclusively cognizabte by the revenue authorities under the Code and jurisdiction of civil court is expressty barred. 9. No doubt, the normal rule of law is that civil courts have jurisdiction to try all suit of civil nature except those of which cognizable by them is either expressly or impliedty exctuded as provided under Section 9 of CPC but such exclusion is not readily inferred and the presumption to be drawn must be in favour of existence rather than exclusion ofjurisdiction of ch/il courts to try a civil suit. 10. The Supreme Court in case of Dhulabhai vs. State of M.P. has laid down the fotlowing tests i. Where the particular Act contains no machinery for refund of tax collected in excess of const'rtutional limits or illegally collected as suit lies. ii. A challenge to the provisions of the particular Act as uttra vires cannot be brought before the Tribunals constituted under that Act. Even the High Court cannot go into that question on a revision or reference from the decision of the Tribunal. ili. Where the statutes gives a finality to the orders of the Special Tribunals the civil court's jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the 2 1969 MPU-1 (I v 11. civil courts would normatly do in a suit. Such provisions, however does not exclude those cases where the provisions of particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory Tribunal has notacted in conformlty with the fundamental principles ofjudicial procedure. iv. Where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the court, an examination of the scheme of the particular Act to find the adequacy or the sufficiency of the remedies provided may be relevant but is not decisive to sustain the jurisdiction of the civil court. v. Questions of the correctness of the assessment apart from its constitutionatity are for the decision of the authorities and a civil suit does not lie if the orders of the authorities are declared to be final or there is an express prohibition in the particular Act. In either case the scheme of the particular Act must be examined because it is relevant enquiry. vi. When a provision is already declared unconstitutional or the constitutionality of any provision is to be challenged, a suit is open. A writ of certiorari may include a direction for refund if the claim is within the time prescribed by the Limitation Act but it is not a compulsory remedy to replace a suit. vii. An exclusion of the jurisdiction of the clvil court is not readily to be inferred unless the conditions above set down apply. The same principles are again enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Manjeti Laxmi Kantha Rao (Dead) by LRs and others3, wherein in para 5 of its Judgment observed as under: "5. The normal rule of law is that civil courts have jurisdiction to try atl suits of civil nature except those of which cognizance by them is either expressly or impliedly excluded as provided under Section 9 of the Code of Ch/il Procedure but such exclusion is not readily inferred and the presumption to be drawn must beinfavour of the existence rather than exclusion 2000 (3) SCC 689 .^s^.>^..^ 6 of jurisdiction of the ch/il courts to try civit suit. The test adopted in examining such a question is (i) whether the legislative intent to exclude arises explicitly or by necessary implication, and (ii)whether thestatute in question provides for adequate and satisfactory alternative remedy to a party aggrieved by an order made under it. In Dhulabhai & Ors. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.,1968 (3) SCR 662, it was noticed that where a statute gives finality to the orders of the special tribunals jurisdiction of the civil courts must be held to be excluded if there is actequate remedy to do what the civil courts would normally do in a suit and such provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity withthe ftjndamental principles ofjudicial procedure." 12. By applying the aforesaid proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred cases in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is clear that, as per Section 257 (1-1) of the Code, the matter relating to Section 170-B of the Code are exclusively triable by the revenue authorities and jurisdiction of civil court is expressly barred. The Code in itself is a self contained Code, also provides remedy of appeal and revision against the order passed by the prescribed authority i.e. SDO. 13. A bare reading of the ptaint averment would reveal that the instant suit has been flled by the plaintiff on the ground that the respondent No. 2,3 & 4, without considering the relevant Tacts and misinterpreting the statement of witnesses, have passed the orders against the plaintiff/applicant and thus the plaintiff has lost his faith upon the revenue courts and therefore he has filed the suit (para 7 of plaint). 14. The suit cannot be filed to re appreciate the findings recorded by the revenue authorities in the orders passed under Section 170-B of the Code in view of specific bar under Section 257 (1-1) of the Code. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has also held in para v 22 of its judgment passed in case of Dhumaniya supra) that the orders passed by the revenue authorities are final and the jurisdiction of civil court is barred under Section 257 (1-1) of the Code. 15. A meaningfut readlng of the plaint would reveal that the suit has not been filed on the ground that in passing the said orders the tesic fundamental principal of judicial procedure have not been followed. It issettled law that if a bare perusal of plaint allegation reveals thatsuit is barred by any law then the court can exercise its k - power under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC at any stage of sutt. 16. In view of above, In the considered opinion of this court, the suit appears to be barred under Section 257 (1-1) of the Code and the orders passed by both the courts below are not without jurisdiction. The revtsion being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- N- K. Agarwal Judge 4^ Sahu