# Ganga Sagar Yadav & Anr v. Smt. Dulari & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 1 ILRA 1357
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-09
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 1008497 of 2013
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ganga-sagar-yadav-anr-v-smt-dulari-ors-51054
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Electricity Law - Electricity Act, 2003 -
Section 145 - Civil Court - Jurisdiction -
Bar of suit - Suit seeking injunction to
restrain the defendants/petitioners not to
erect electricity poles and electricity line
over plaintiff's plot - Maintainability -
Held, S. 145 excludes jurisdiction of the
Civil Courts in the matter where orders
have been passed by the assessing officer
referred in S. 126 or appellate authority as
mentioned in Section 127 or adjudicating
officer appointed u/s 6 - The controversy
raised with regard to erection of electric
poles and electric line over the plaintiff's
plot is clearly not barred by S. 145 and
consequently, the trial Court did not
commit any error while holding that the
suit in this regard was maintainable and
not barred under Section 145 of the Act,

## Text

1 All. Ganga Sagar Yadav & Anr. Vs. Smt. Dulari & Ors.
1357
provisions of Act of 1947 are not
applicable, does not have any force and is
hereby rejected. Even, the Labour Court, in
the impugned award has also given the
same interpretation after relying upon the
judgments in the case of Des Raj and etc.
(supra) and other authorities. I do not find
any error in the view taken by the Labour
Court in this regard."

11.

Considering
the
aforesaid
judgments and also nature of the work
involved in the present case where the
workmen were working on the post of Mali
and were involved in the task of plantation
in the forest and distribution of forest
produce, the said exercise was definitely a
systematic activity and they have been
working for four years continuously, it
cannot be said that they were daily or
casual
employees
engaged
only
intermittently. Accordingly the arguments
of the petitioner cannot be accepted.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Fisheries Department (supra) has held
U.P. Forest Corporation to be an industry
and accordingly we do not find any
infirmity with the impugned order.

12. In view of the above, this Court is
of the considered view that there is no
merit in the writ petition and no infirmity is
found in the order of the Industrial Tribunal
which is affirmed and the writ petition is
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 1357
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ-C No. 1008497 of 2013
Ganga Sagar Yadav & Anr ...Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Dulari & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Rajesh Chandra Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Prashant Arora, Dhirendra Pratap Singh

A. Electricity Law - Electricity Act, 2003 -
Section 145 - Civil Court - Jurisdiction -
Bar of suit - Suit seeking injunction to
restrain the defendants/petitioners not to
erect electricity poles and electricity line
over plaintiff's plot - Maintainability -
Held, S. 145 excludes jurisdiction of the
Civil Courts in the matter where orders
have been passed by the assessing officer
referred in S. 126 or appellate authority as
mentioned in Section 127 or adjudicating
officer appointed u/s 6 - The controversy
raised with regard to erection of electric
poles and electric line over the plaintiff's
plot is clearly not barred by S. 145 and
consequently, the trial Court did not
commit any error while holding that the
suit in this regard was maintainable and
not barred under Section 145 of the Act,
2003. (Para 10 and 11)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of cases cited:

1. Dwarka Prasad Agarwal Vs Ramesh Chander
Agarwal; (2003) 6 SCC 220

2. Ram Swarup Vs Shikar Chand; AIR 1966 SC
893

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rajesh Chandra Mishra,
learned counsel for the petitioners. No one
appears for the respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners
at the very outset has prayed that he may be
permitted to make amendment in the memo
1358 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of writ petition for treating it to be writ
petition under Article 227 rather than
petition
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
is
permitted
to
make
necessary
incorporation in the memo of writ petition
during course of the day.

4. By means of present writ petition
the petitioners have challenged the order
dated 09.02.2012, passed by the Additional
Civil Judge (Junior Division), Raebareilly
whereby he has decided the issue with
regard to jurisdiction in favour of the
plaintiff and against the petitioners. The
petitioners subsequently assailed the order
dated 09.02.2012 before the District Judge,
Raebareilly by filing revision being Civil
Revision No. 35 of 2012, which was also
rejected and order of trial Court in this
regard has been affirmed.

5. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioners that respondent
no. 1 had filed a suit for permanent
injunction seeking prayer for restraining
the defendants/petitioners and respondent
nos. 2 to 4 not to erect electricity poles
and electricity line over plot no. 632,
situated at Village - Purey Alpi Majre,
Chilaula Bhangaria, Post - Kalyanpur
Raili, Pargana, Tehsil & District -
Raibereilly.
The
said
suit
was
subsequently amended and plaintiff had
further prayed for mandatory injunction
against defendants.

6. The petitioners had appeared in the
suit proceedings and filed their objections
and submitted that the Civil Court did not
had jurisdiction to interfere in the suit and
same would be liable to be dismissed as not
maintainable. The Additional Civil Judge
(Junior Division) has framed four issues
and issue no. 4 pertains to jurisdiction of
the civil Court to entertain and decide the
issue raised by the plaintiff.

7. The trial Court while rejecting the
objections filed by the petitioners recorded
that Section 145 of the Electricity Act,
2003 is not applicable in the facts of the
present case and provisions which bar
maintainability of the suit, restricts only to
matters which an assessing officer referred
to in Section 126 or the appellate Court
referred
to
in
Section
127 or
the
adjudicating officer appointed under this
Act is empowered by or under this Act to
determine and no injunction shall be
granted by any court or other authority in
respect of any action taken or to be taken in
pursuance of any power conferred by or
under this Act.

8. The trial Court was of the view that
the dispute in the present case is not
relatable to any assessment proceedings
and permanent injunction has been sought
against defendants for erecting electric
poles and electricity line over the said land.
For the sake of convenience Section 145 of
the Electricity Act, 2003 is re-produced
herein below :-

"145. Civil court not to have
jurisdiction.- No civil court shall have
jurisdiction to entertain any suit or
proceeding in respect of any matter which
an assessing officer referred to in Section
126 or the appellate Court referred to in
Section 127 or the adjudicating officer
appointed under this Act is empowered by
or under this Act to determine and no
injunction shall be granted by any court or
other authority in respect of any action
taken or to be taken in pursuance of any
power conferred by or under this Act."
1 All. Ganga Sagar Yadav & Anr. Vs. Smt. Dulari & Ors.
1359

9. From the perusal of aforesaid
provision it is clear that the civil Court can
entertain the matters with regard to
assessment which fall under Chapter XII -
Investigation and Enforcement. The said
Chapter deals with the matters pertaining to
assessment of electricity consumed and
under Section 127 provides for appeal
before the appellate authority and further in
relation to investigation of certain matters.

10. Undisputedly, where ever there is
statutory prescription excluding powers of
the civil Court then such a provision has to
be interpreted strictly. Section 145 of the
Electricity Act, 2003 excludes jurisdiction
of the civil Courts as specifically stated that
the civil Courts shall not have jurisdiction
in the matter where orders have been
passed by the assessing officer referred in
Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 or
appellate authority as mentioned in Section
127 or adjudicating officer appointed under
Section 6 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
There is no exclusion of jurisdiction of the
civil Courts in relation to other matters.

11. The controversy raised in the
present case is with regard to permanent
injunction sought by the plaintiff with
regard to erection of electric poles and
electric line over the plot owned by the
plaintiff. Such a dispute is clearly not
barred by Section 145 of the Electricity
Act, 2003 and consequently, the trial Court
did not commit any error while interpreting
provisions of Section 145 of the Act, 2003
and holding that the suit in this regard was
maintainable and not barred under Section
145 of the Act, 2003. At this stage it would
be useful to consider judgments of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in this regard.

12. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Dwarka Prasad Agarwal Vs. Ramesh
Chander Agarwal, (2003) 6 SCC 220, in
para 22 of the judgment has discussed the
issue regarding civil Court's jurisdiction as
follows :-

"In a catena of judgments, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as various
High Courts have held that exclusion of
civil court's jurisdiction cannot be readily
inferred. Such exclusion must either be
explicitly expressed or clearly implied.
Even if the jurisdiction is so excluded, the
civil courts have jurisdiction to examine the
cases where the provisions of the Act have
not been complied with or the statutory
tribunal has not acted in conformity with
the
principles
of
judicial
procedure.
[Dewaji v. Ganpatlal, AIR 1969 SC
560;Sree Kandregula Srinivasa Jagannath
Rao Pantulu Bahadur Garu v. State of A.P.,
(1969) 3 SCC 71.] Similarly the civil court
can always entertain and decide the suit
where fraud has been practised upon the
court and this point has been settled by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in its celebrated
judgment delivered in S.P. Chengalvaraya
Naidu v. Jagannath [(1994) 1 SCC 1.]
wherein it has been observed by Their
Lordships thus:

1. "Fraud avoids all judicial acts,
ecclesiastical or temporal" observed Chief
Justice Coke of England about three
centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of
law that a judgment or decree obtained by
playing fraud on the court is a nullity and
non est in the eyes of law. Such a
judgment/decree?by the first court or by the
highest court?has to be treated as a nullity by
every court, whether superior or inferior. It
can be challenged in any court even in
collateral proceedings. [(1994) 1 SCC]"

13. The Constitution Bench of the
Apex Court in the case of Ram Swarup
1360 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Vs. Shikar Chand, AIR 1966 SC 893,
while dealing with the issue of jurisdiction
of Civil Courts has formulated the
following two tests :-

"The two tests, which are often
considered relevant in dealing with the
question about the exclusion of civil courts'
jurisdiction are (a) whether the special
statute which excludes such jurisdiction has
used
clear
and
unambiguous
words
indicating that intention; and (b) does that
statute provide for an adequate and
satisfactory alternative remedy to a party
that may be aggrieved by the relevant order
under its material provisions. Applying
these tests the inference is inescapable that
the jurisdiction of the civil courts is
intended to be excluded."

14. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Dhruv Green Field Ltd. Vs. Hukum Singh
& Others, 2002 (6) SCC 416, has outlined
the principles for deciding the issue of
jurisdiction of Civil Court's, in the
following manner :-

"10. In the light of the above
discussion, the following principles may be
restated:

(1) If there is express provision in
any special Act barring the jurisdiction of a
civil court to deal with matters specified
thereunder the jurisdiction of an ordinary
civil court shall stand excluded.

(2) If there is no express
provision in the Act but an examination of
the provisions contained therein leads to a
conclusion in regard to exclusion of
jurisdiction of a civil court, the court would
then inquire whether any adequate and
efficacious alternative remedy is provided
under the Act; if the answer is in the
affirmative, it can safely be concluded that
the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred.
If, however, no such adequate and effective
alternative
remedy
is
provided
then
exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil
court cannot be inferred.

(3) Even in cases where the
jurisdiction of a civil court is barred
expressly or impliedly, the court would
nonetheless
retain
its
jurisdiction
to
entertain and adjudicate the suit provided
the order complained of is a nullity."

15. This Court has also perused the
record as well as arguments of the
petitioners and has also gone through the
statutory provisions and judgments of the
Apex Court and is of the considered view
that there is no infirmity in both the
impugned orders and the suit would not
barred by the provisions of Section 145 of
the Act, 2003.

16. The District Judge while rejecting
the revision has also duly considered the
arguments raised by the petitioners and had
also affirmed the findings recorded by the
trial Court.

17. In view of discussion made above
as well as in the light of aforesaid case law,
this Court is of the considered view that no
interference in the matter by this Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is called for.

18 . From the perusal of Section 145
of the Electricity Act, 2003 it is clear that
controversy as raised by the petitioner is
with regard to the dispute pertaining to
erection of electric poles in the private
lands, hence the said nature of case has not
been provided for in Section 145 of the
Act,
2003,
and
consequently,
the
1 All. Rakesh Kumar Vs. Addl. Commissioner Admn. Faizabad & Ors.
1361
jurisdiction of civil Courts has not been
ousted. The matters which have been
excluded have been clearly stated in
Section 145 of the Act, 2003 and the
dispute in the present case is not covered.

19. The writ petition devoid of merits
is dismissed.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 1361
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ-C No. 3000066 of 1998

Rakesh Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Addl. Commissioner Admn. Faizabad &
Ors. ....Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
H.S. Sahai, S.K. Gupta, U.S. Sahai

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Ceiling on Land Holdings -
Validity of Adoption Under U.P. Imposition
of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 -
Petitioner challenged the orders dated 30.03.1995
and 24.01.1998, which rejected his claim of being
the adopted son of Sant Ram, arguing that Sant
Ram's land devolved upon him and not his
brothers, Ramdhan and Govardhan - Held, the
Prescribed Authority and Appellate Authority erred
in dismissing overwhelming oral and documentary
evidence, including St.ments from the petitioner's
mother, village Pradhan, priest, and revenue
records, confirming the adoption, rendering their
findings arbitrary and perverse. (Paras 6, 7, 9, 10,
11, 12, 14, 16, 17)

B. Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act,
1956 - Compliance with Section 11 -
Respondents
argued
the
adoption
was
a
camouflage to evade ceiling limits - Held, the
adoption complied with Section 11(vi) of the Hindu
Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, as
evidenced by the priest's testimony and villagers'
St.ments confirming a formal ceremony where the
petitioner, a minor, was given and taken in
adoption
by
Sant
Ram,
satisfying
legal
requirements for a valid adoption. (Paras 12, 20,
21)

C. Devolution of Property Post-Adoption -
The Prescribed Authority held that Sant Ram's land
devolved upon his brothers, Ramdhan and
Govardhan, leading to surplus land declarations -
Held, as the petitioner was validly adopted by Sant
Ram, his property devolved upon the petitioner,
not his brothers, and thus, the land should not
have been included in Ramdhan and Govardhan's
holdings for ceiling calculations under the Act,
1960. (Paras 7, 17, 18, 22)

D. Evaluation of Evidence - Arbitrary
Rejection - Petitioner contended that the
Prescribed Authority misread his mother's St.ment
and ignored consistent testimonies - Held, the
authorities' rejection of the adoption based on
Shanti Devi's absence during the ceremony and an
erroneous interpretation of her St.ment was hypertechnical and ignored corroborative evidence from
multiple witnesses and revenue records, violating
the court's earlier directive in Writ Petition No.
3387 of 1980 to consider all evidence holistically.
(Paras 13, 14, 16, 17, 19)

E. Judicial Review of Ceiling Orders - The
Appellate
Authority
upheld
the
Prescribed
Authority's finding without properly evaluating
evidence - Held, the orders dated 30.03.1995 and
24.01.1998 were unsustainable due to their failure
to consider substantial evidence of adoption and
misapplication of the Act, 1960, warranting their
quashing and recognition of the petitioner's right
to inherit Sant Ram's land. (Paras 15, 17, 23)

Writ Petition Allowed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Sri U.S. Sahai, learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
Standing Counsel for the respondents.