Ram Salone Sharma and anr. Vs. Ram Ashrya Sharma and ors.

Ram Salone Sharma and anr. vs Ram Ashrya Sharma and ors.

Disposition Revision allowed Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Oct 23, 2002

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/508978

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/508978
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: S.P. Khare, J.
Decided On: Oct 23, 2002
Case Number: Civil Revision No. 239/98
Subject: Property
Disposition: Revision allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MADHYA PRADESH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT (23 OF 1956)Section 91 & M.P. Municipal Corporation Act (1956), Section 307(5): [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., A.M. Sapre & S.K.Seth, JJ] Public nuisance - Suit for injunction - Held, Section 91(I) of the C.P.C. is not exhaustive of the remedies that are available to a party e...

Key legal issue: Property
Outcome / disposition: Revision allowed
Acts & sections: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 18 and 30; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 9

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ram Salone Sharma and anr.

Advocate None

Respondent

Ram Ashrya Sharma and ors.

Advocate D. Bhatti, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, ;None for Respondent No. 3 and ;Kiran Mehta, Panel Lawyer for Respondent No. 4

Legal References

Acts: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 18 and 30; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 9
Cases Referred: and T.R. Sidhan v. Special Tehsildar
Reported In: 2002(4)MPHT542; 2003(3)MPLJ252

Excerpt

- madhya pradesh municipal corporation act (23 of 1956)section 91 & m.p. municipal corporation act (1956), section 307(5): [a.k. patnaik, c.j., a.m. sapre & s.k.seth, jj] public nuisance - suit for injunction - held, section 91(i) of the c.p.c. is not exhaustive of the remedies that are available to a party even in case of a public nuisance or other wrongful act affecting or likely to affect the public. the remedy of the corporation and any other person under sub-section (5) of section 307 of the act of 1956 is independent of the provisions of section 91 of the c.p.c. and not only the corporation but any other person can apply to the district court for injunction or removal or alteration of a building on the ground that the provisions of the act of 1956 or the bye-laws made thereunder have been contravened. sections 41(j) & 4 & m.p. municipal corporation act (1956), section 307(5): [a.k. patnaik, c.j., a.m. sapre & s.k. seth, jj] relief of injunction held, the reliefs under the specific relief act, 1963 are granted for the purpose of enforcing individual civil rights as will be clear from section 4 of the specific relief act. 1963. accordingly, injunction under part iii of the specific relief act, 1963 is granted to the plaintiff either to prevent a breach of an obligation in favour of the plaintiff, or to compel the performance of an obligation in his favour. unless, therefore, there is an obligation in favour of the plaintiff which needs to be enforced, the court cannot grant injunction. hence, it is provided in section 41(j) of the specific relief act. 1963 that an injunction cannot be granted when the plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter. the provisions of the specific relief act, 1963 do not apply to the right conferred on the corporation and any other person under sub-section (5) of section 307 of m.p. municipal corporation act, 1956. under the provisions of the act of 1956, every building must comply with the provisions of the act..........in the house which was acquired and therefore, they have half share in the amount of compensation which has been deposited. it is well settled that the civil court has jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature except those expressly or impliedly barred. so far as the exclusion of jurisdiction is concerned, it is equally well-settled that such exclusion is not readily inferred. it must be explicit or clearly implied. even in cases where jurisdiction of the civil court is excluded there are circumstances under which a civil court may entertain a suit. a perusal of section 30 of the l. a. act also makes it absolutely clear that this section itself contemplates adjudication of disputes in regard to apportionment etc. by the court. it simply provides for a simple procedure of reference by the collector himself. the object is to save the parties from unnecessary expenditure and wastage of time in filing a separate suit for the purpose. by any interpretation, from this provision, exclusion of jurisdiction of the civil court cannot be implied. a person claiming a part of the compensation awarded by the collector in land acquisition proceeding under the l.a. act is entitled to file a civil suit to establish his claim. (asher ali v. sukhna, air 1992 gauhati 1 and t.r. sidhan v. special tehsildar, air 1975 kerala 27).5. the trial court has wrongly held that the suit cannot be entertained by the civil court. the court-fee which has been paid by the plaintiffs on the relief of declaration is also proper. 6. this revision is allowed. impugned order dated 24-10-1997 is set aside and the trial court is directed to proceed with the trial of the suit.

Full Judgment

ORDER

S.P. Khare, J.

1. This is a revision by the plaintiffs against the order by which it has been held that the civil suit for declaration and injunction is not maintainable in view of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

2. The petitioner's case is that the house in dispute situated in Village Ramnagar Jtma is their joint family property and of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. According to plaintiffs, Dhanukdhari was the owner of this house. He had four sons. Plaintiff No. 1 Ramsalone, Defendant No. 1 Ramashraya and defendant No. 2 Ramlolar are three of them. Mangaldeen was also son of Dhanukdhari. He has died and plaintiff No. 2 Bhagwandas is his son. Thus, according to the plaintiffs they had half share in the house which has been acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer for Bansagar Project. The amount of compensation has been deposited. Half of the amount of compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer has been paid to the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and the remaining half is still in deposit.

3. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 submitted an application for dismissal of the suit on the ground that it cannot be entertained by the Civil Court and the proper Court-fee has also not been paid. The Trial Court upheld these objections and dismissed the suit.

4. After hearing learned Counsel for both the sides this Court is of the opinion that the order of the Trial Court suffers from jurisdictional infirmity. The plaintiffs are not challenging the amount of compensation which has been awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. They are seeking declaration that they had half share in the house which was acquired and therefore, they have half share in the amount of compensation which has been deposited. It is well settled that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature except those expressly or impliedly barred. So far as the exclusion of jurisdiction is concerned, it is equally well-settled that such exclusion is not readily inferred. It must be explicit or clearly implied. Even in cases where jurisdiction of the Civil Court is excluded there are circumstances under which a Civil Court may entertain a suit. A perusal of Section 30 of the L. A. Act also makes it absolutely clear that this section itself contemplates adjudication of disputes in regard to apportionment etc. by the Court. It simply provides for a simple procedure of reference by the Collector himself. The object is to save the parties from unnecessary expenditure and wastage of time in filing a separate suit for the purpose. By any interpretation, from this provision, exclusion of jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot be implied. A person claiming a part of the compensation awarded by the Collector in land acquisition proceeding under the L.A. Act is entitled to file a civil suit to establish his claim. (Asher Ali v. Sukhna, AIR 1992 Gauhati 1 and T.R. Sidhan v. Special Tehsildar, AIR 1975 Kerala 27).

5. The Trial Court has wrongly held that the suit cannot be entertained by the Civil Court. The Court-fee which has been paid by the plaintiffs On the relief of declaration is also proper.

6. This revision is allowed. Impugned order dated 24-10-1997 is set aside and the Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial of the suit.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2002 Same Parties Ram Salone Sharma and anr. vs Ram Ashrya Sharma and ors. Same Subject Property Same Judge S.P. Khare, J. Acts & Sections Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 18 and 30; Code of Civi...

Property