Case: POORAN SINGH Vs. DHANIRAM (SINCE DEAD) THR. LEGAL HEIRS

said to have been served on him and purporting to bear his signature in fact does not bear his signature and that it contains a forge signature of the petitioner. He having failed to take this plea before the fact finding authorities, cannot take it for the first time under Article 226 of the Constitution. If the petitioner was given an opportunity by serving notice on him and he failed to appear without any sufficient cause, he alone is to be blamed for that.It was then urged by counsel for the petitioner that in view of section 170C of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, no counsel could have appeared for respondent no.5 before the Collector without obtaining the permission of the Collector. The question as to whether counsel who appeared for respondent no. 5 had obtained any permission from the Collector or not, is again a question of fact and it should have been raised before the fact finding authorities. It cannot be raised for the first time in a writ petition.No other point has been pressed.In the result, the petition is dismissed.”8. On 19 July 1986, possession was restored to Beniram, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant.9. After the dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court, Dhaniram filed a suit before the Civil Judge Class II, Balod against the appellant seeking a permanent injunction, possession and a declaration that the order dated 5 June 1985 of the Collector was null and void. The appellant contested the suit. The suit was rejected on 11 December 1995. However, in a first appeal , the District Judge, Durg set aside the order of the Trial Court and decreed the suit. The appellant unsuccessfully challenged the order of the first appellate court in a Second Appeal. The Second Appeal having been dismissed on 25 February 2015, these proceedings were instituted.10. After the rejection of the suit on 11 December 1995, Section 257 (L-1) was introduced by an amendment of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code in order to bar the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain suits pertaining to orders under Section 170B. Section 257, insofar as is material, reads as follows:“257. Except as otherwise provided in this Code, or in any other enactment for the time being in force, no Civil Court shall entertain any suit instituted or application made to obtain a decision or order on any matter which the State Government, the Board, or any Revenue Officer is by this Code, empowered to determine, decide or dispose of, and in particular and without prejudice to the generality of this provision, no Civil Court shall exercise jurisdiction over any of the following matters :-(a) any decision regarding the purpose to which land is appropriated under Section 59;(b) any question as to the validity or effect of the notification of a revenue survey or any question as to the term of a settlement;(c) any claim to modify a decision determining abadi made by a Settlement Officer or Collector;(d) any claim against the State Government to hold land free of land revenue, or at less than the fair assessment, or to be assigned in whole or in part the land revenue assessed on any land;(e) the amount of land revenue assessed or reassessed under this Code or any other enactment for the time being in force;(f) any claim against the State Government to have any entry made in any land records or to have any such entry omitted or amended.(g) any question regarding the demarcation of boundaries or fixing of boundary marks under Chapter X;(h) any claim against the State Government connected with or arising out of, the collection of land revenue or the recovery of any sum which is recoverable as land revenue under this Code or any other enactment;(i) any claim against the State Government or against a Revenue Officer for remission or suspension of land revenue, or for a declaration that crops have failed in any year;(j) any decision regarding forfeiture in cases of certain transfers under Section 166;(k) ejectment of a lesser of a bhumiswami under sub- section (4) of Section 168;1(l) any claim to set aside transfer by a bhumiswami under subsection (1) of Section 170 and clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 170-A;]2(l-1) any matter covered under Section 170-B.]”11. The High Court by its impugned order held that:(i) no enquiry had been made by the Collector under Section 170B;(ii) the presumption under Section 170B is rebuttable;(iii) the amendment introducing Section 257 (L-1) on 15 December 1995 would have no application to the suit which was instituted on 18 February 1992; and(iv) in view of (ii), the bar of jurisdiction was not attracted.12. The basic issue which falls for consideration is whether it was open to the respondent to institute a suit to challenge the order passed by the Collector, Durg on 5 June 1985, when an earlier challenge to the legality of the order had culminated in the final judgment of the High Court on 16 February 1987. The answer to that issue must lie in the negative. The order of the Collector was placed in issue before the High Court in MP 367 of 1987. The order which has been extracted in the earlier part of the judgment indicates that the challenge was on the ground that the notice of the appeal before the Collector had not been served on the original respondent, Dhaniram. The judgment of the High Court enquired into the legality of the order passed by the Collector. The High Court came to the conclusion that the order was in accordance with law. The writ petition was dismissed. Once the order of the Collector was affirmed in the final judgment and order of the High Court dated 16 February 1987, it was not open to a civil court to arrive at a conclusion to the contrary. The High Court, in our view, has manifestly erred in ignoring the clear effect of the earlier order dated 16 February 1987.

Court's decision (1 = petition accepted / positive for appellant, 0 = rejected / negative): 1

Reasoning from the judgment:
1[ds]The answer to that issue must lie in the negative. The order of the Collector was placed in issue before the High Court in MP 367 of 1987. The order which has been extracted in the earlier part of the judgment indicates that the challenge was on the ground that the notice of the appeal before the Collector had not been served on the original respondent, Dhaniram. The judgment of the High Court enquired into the legality of the order passed by the Collector. The High Court came to the conclusion that the order was in accordance with law. The writ petition was dismissed. Once the order of the Collector was affirmed in the final judgment and order of the High Court dated 16 February 1987, it was not open to a civil court to arrive at a conclusion to the contrary. The High Court, in our view, has manifestly erred in ignoring the clear effect of the earlier order dated 16 February 1987.