R.S.A.No.3511 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. RSA No.3511of 2009 Decided on 14.7.2010. M/s Mohinder Pal Mohan Lal --Appellant vs. State of Haryana and another -- Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Bhag Singh,Advocate,for the appellant Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, Plaintiff is in second appeal against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below, whereby his suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction has been dismissed. In brief, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration challenging the order dated 11.6.1998 passed by Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Mullana, Sanand Takseem dated 13.8.1998 in a partition case No.24/NT of 11.4.1996, order of the Collector dated 20.10.1999 and order of the Commissioner, Ambala, dated 21.11.2000, on the ground that they had not followed proper procedure, rules and regulations of the Punjab Land Revenue Act,1887 (for short,the Act) and also prayed for injunction to restrain defendant Nos.1 and 2 from getting the order of partition dated 11.6.1998 and 13.8.1998 implemented and from selling, alienating, cutting the treess R.S.A.No.3511 of 2009 (O&M) 2 standing over the suit land or creating any sort of charge exceeding their shares. It would be worth while to mention here that the Frist Appellate Court has decided issue No.4 against the plaintiff/appellant on the ground that in terms of Section 158 of the Act, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. At the first instance, this Court confronted the learned counsel for the appellant with the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court on issue No.4. Although, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he has been given less land in partition but he could not refer to any law that the orders of the revenue authorities i.e.Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Collector and the Commissioner could be challenged by way of Civil suit in the presence of a clear bar of jurisdiction provided under Section 158 of the Act. Admittedly, the order of the Commissioner could be challenged by the appellant by way of a revision under Section 16 (i) of the Act, but without resorting to the remedy available under the Act, the appellant has filed the present suit, which was not maintainable. Since this Court is of the view that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit which has rightly been held by the Court below and the appellant has failed to prove to the contrary, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in this appeal, as envisaged under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (for short, CPC) and the same is hereby dismissed in limine, however, without any order as to costs. 14.7.2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge R.S.A.No.3511 of 2009 (O&M) 3