# HAITI v. SlJ.NDER SINGH

- **Citation:** [1971] 2 S.C.R. 163
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1970-09-11
- **Bench:** S. M. S!Kri, V. Bhargava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/haiti-v-slj-nder-singh-5308
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

163
Civil Court-Exclueion of Jurisdiction-Delhi Land Reforms Act,
1954-Sections 84, 185, 186 and item 4 of First Schedule-Jurisdiction of
Revenue Court-Suit to establish Bhumidari righr if competent-Civil
Court's competence to decide title in proceedings under First Schedule.
Under s. 13 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 the appellant a
tenant was declared bhumidhar of land belonging to the respondent. The
respondent filecl a suit in the Civil Court claiming that the bhumidhari
issued to the appellant was illegal, that he should instead be declared the
bhumidhar and prayed for possession of the land. Apart from the issues
on merits, the appellant raised the issue that the Civil Court had
no
jurisdiction to entert•in the suit in yiew of tho bar in s. 185 of the Act.
The trial court held that the jurisdiction of civil court wa. 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 s. 84 the right to institute a
suit for possession was granted only to a bhu1nidar: or an asanii, or the
gaon sahha.
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, in-stitute a suit for possession. This aspect of the case has been Jost
sight of by the High Court and the lo\\'er courts. because it appears that
their attention was not drawn to the provision of s. 154 of the Act, under
which all l_ands of proprietors, other than those comprised in their holdings, vested in the gaon sabha, thus extinguishing their proprietary rights.
(167 G-HJ
(ii.I There is
no provision in the rules for giving notice to different
interested parties before a declaration of bl11unidari rights is made. Any
person, who is aggrieved by a d1!claration of bliuniidlzari right issued in
fayour 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 c.eclaration 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 BJ
Loi Singh v. Sardara & Anr. I.L.R. (1964] Vol. 17, 2 Pb. 428 referred
to.
(iii) It is true that the declarations made by the revenue authorities
witheut going through the judicial procedure are subject to due adjudication of rights; but such adjudication must he by an application under
item 4 of Sch. J and not by approach to the civil court.
The jurisdiction
of the civil court is already barred by s. 185 of the Act read with various
items of the first Schedule (169 D-2]
The inference contra in Lal Singh v. Sarciara & Anr. I.LR. [1964]
vol. 17, 2 Pb. 428 disapproved.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] 2 S.C.R.
(iv) Section
186 only envisages that question of title will arise be·
A
fore 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]
CrvrL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1228 ot
B
1966:
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated
December 2, 1965 of the Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench at
Dc.'.hi in Letters Patent Api:ieal No. 57-D of 1965.
·
C. B. Agarwala and P. P. Juneja, for the a]Jpellant.
c
Sardari Lal Bhatia, D. R. Gupta and H. K. Puri, for the
rrspondt'1Ilt

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
HAITI
v.
SlJ.NDER SINGH
September 11, 1970
[S. M. S!KRI AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.]
163
Civil Court-Exclueion of Jurisdiction-Delhi Land Reforms Act,
1954-Sections 84, 185, 186 and item 4 of First Schedule-Jurisdiction of
Revenue Court-Suit to establish Bhumidari righr if competent-Civil
Court's competence to decide title in proceedings under First Schedule.
Under s. 13 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 the appellant a
tenant was declared bhumidhar of land belonging to the respondent. The
respondent filecl a suit in the Civil Court claiming that the bhumidhari
issued to the appellant was illegal, that he should instead be declared the
bhumidhar and prayed for possession of the land. Apart from the issues
on merits, the appellant raised the issue that the Civil Court had
no
jurisdiction to entert•in the suit in yiew of tho bar in s. 185 of the Act.
The trial court held that the jurisdiction of civil court wa. 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 s. 84 the right to institute a
suit for possession was granted only to a bhu1nidar: or an asanii, or the
gaon sahha.
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, in-stitute a suit for possession. This aspect of the case has been Jost
sight of by the High Court and the lo\\'er courts. because it appears that
their attention was not drawn to the provision of s. 154 of the Act, under
which all l_ands of proprietors, other than those comprised in their holdings, vested in the gaon sabha, thus extinguishing their proprietary rights.
(167 G-HJ
(ii.I There is
no provision in the rules for giving notice to different
interested parties before a declaration of bl11unidari rights is made. Any
person, who is aggrieved by a d1!claration of bliuniidlzari right issued in
fayour 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 c.eclaration 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 BJ
Loi Singh v. Sardara & Anr. I.L.R. (1964] Vol. 17, 2 Pb. 428 referred
to.
(iii) It is true that the declarations made by the revenue authorities
witheut going through the judicial procedure are subject to due adjudication of rights; but such adjudication must he by an application under
item 4 of Sch. J and not by approach to the civil court.
The jurisdiction
of the civil court is already barred by s. 185 of the Act read with various
items of the first Schedule (169 D-2]
The inference contra in Lal Singh v. Sarciara & Anr. I.LR. [1964]
vol. 17, 2 Pb. 428 disapproved.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] 2 S.C.R.
(iv) Section
186 only envisages that question of title will arise be·
A
fore 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]
CrvrL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1228 ot
B
1966:
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated
December 2, 1965 of the Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench at
Dc.'.hi in Letters Patent Api:ieal No. 57-D of 1965.
·
C. B. Agarwala and P. P. Juneja, for the a]Jpellant.
c
Sardari Lal Bhatia, D. R. Gupta and H. K. Puri, for the
rrspondt'1Ilt.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Bhargava, J.
The api;ellant 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 \he respondent be declared entitled to Bhunridari 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 respon·
dent 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 Md no
rights in the land after the expiry of the }lustrajri. He was asked
to surrender possession, but failed to do so.
On the other hand,
he was wrongly granted the declaration under s. 13 of the Act
that he was a Bhunridar 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-0ecupancy tenant and he was entitled to
the declaration of his Bhunridari rights. Apart from the issues on
merits, one issue was raised by the appellut that the Civil Court
had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the provisions .
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
H.'TTI v. SUNDER SINGH (Bhargava, J.)
16 5
of section 18 5 of the Act. The trial Court held that the jurildiction of the Civil Court was not barred. On merits, the filldiiig
recorded was that the. respondent was the proprietor of the land,
but no declaration could be granted that he became Bhumidar
under s. 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 185(1) 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 I 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 Bh · :midari rights in column 3 and,
inter alia refers to sections 11 and 13 of the Act.
For these
applications, there is no period of limitation prescribed at all, and
the Court of original jurisdictioi1 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 case1
The period of limitation is
three years, in the first case. from the date of issue of the pres-·
cribed declaration form; in the second case, from the date of
constitution of Gaon Panchayat under s. 151; and, in the third
case, from tte 1st of July following the date of occupation. The
166
SUPREME COUllT REPORTS
[1971] 2 S.C.ll.
Court of original jurisdiction in each case is that of the Revenue
Assistant. Item 28 refers to section H. 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
th.at 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 compL~te· 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 Bhurnidars 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 son;ie other classes,
shall become Asamis.
"Holding" was defined in section 3 (I la)
.of the Act by stating that it means :-
(a) in respect of-
(i) Bhumidar or Asami; or
(ii) tenant or sub-tenant under the Punjab Tenancy
Act, 1887, or the Agra Tenancy A-ct, 1901; or
(iii) lessee under the Bhoodan- Yagna Act, 195~, a
parcel or parcels of land held under one tenure,
)ease, engagement or grant; al)d
( 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 llilder the Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1955,
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
8
c
D
E
F
G
H
HATTI Y. SUNDER SINGH (Bhargava, J.)
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 !and. bec~e
Bhumidars. These sections have to be read in con1unction with
section 15 4 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, ex.ept
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 <X some other person, such as a tenaint 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 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 laind after the commencemellt
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 proprietors, other than those comprised in their holdings, vested in the
Gaon Sabha, thus extinguishing their proprietary rights.
168
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1971]2 s.C.R.
A second aspect that needs examination relates to the provisions 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
8 ( 4) lays down that anyone, who challenges the correctness of
entrie~ 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 ot matters not covered by item 4 of the First. Schedule.
This sub-rule would not stand in the way of an app1ication 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 v.
Sardara and Another(!) and, in our opinioo, he rig1'.tly 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
Bllumidari right can be granted under s. 11 ors. 13 without call·
iJ11 for objections and without hearing contesting parties in favour
of the J*!IOD who appears to the revenue auth()tjties to be entitled
to the declaration on the basis of the records maintained by them.
'I'lllrafttt, any person aggrieved and claiming Bhumidari rights
is e:rpected to move an application before the Revenue Assistant
(I). I.L.R. [1964] Vol. 17 (2) Pb. 428.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
8
c
D
E
F
G
HATTI v. SUNDER SINGH (Bhargava, /.)
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 appli1,;ation before
the
Revenue Assistant under item 4 <if 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 ac;:ordance with the Rules without any adjudication of rights and without notice to interested
parties.
Khanna, J., in the case of Lal Singh v. Sardara & Another(!)
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 autl!orities while
declaring Bhumidari rights, their declaration niust 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 tl!at the
declarations made by the revenue autl!orities without going
through tl!e 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 th.e 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 call'
institute a suit for a declaration under item 28, and the Revenue
Assistant can make a declaration of tl!e 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 tl!e 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 instituted 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
H
and s. 84 of the Act provide full remedy for suit for possession
. to persons who can hold rights in agricultural land under the Act.
{I) I.L.R. (1964] Vol. 17
(2) Pb 428.
12- L235Sup.CinI
170
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] 2 S.C.R.
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
tilis pro·vision 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 b.e!ore the Revenue Courts in
suits or proceedings under the First Schedule and, only if such a
question arises in a compet.ent 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 aggriev.ed by a
.declaration issued without notice to him in favour of a:1other, can
approa~h the Revenue Assistant under item 4 of the First Schedule
and this he is allowed to do without any period of limitation, be·
·cause 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 {O entertain the suit.
In the re~u!t, 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.
Y.P.
Appeal allowed.
A
"' ,,
c
D
E
·F
G
H