Azad and Others Vs. Dharampal and Others

Azad and Others vs Dharampal and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Supreme Court of India Decided Nov 07, 1996

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/640662

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/640662
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judge: N.P. Singh and; S.B. Majmudar, JJ.
Decided On: Nov 07, 1996
Case Number: C.A. No. 3667 of 1986
Subject: Civil;Property

Case Summary

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

- LABOUR & SERVICESAppointment: [S.B. Sinha & Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ] Appellants amongst others rank listed by Public Service Commission on requisition made by State No vacancy, however, filled by State - State passing order that no vacancy exists - Order challenged by some rank listed candidates - High Court on...

Key legal issue: Civil;Property
Acts & sections: Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 - Sections 26(1); Pepsu Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, 1955

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Azad and Others

Respondent

Dharampal and Others

Legal References

Acts: Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 - Sections 26(1); Pepsu Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, 1955
Cases Referred: Shiv Kumar Chandha v. Municipal Corpn. of Delhi
Reported In: JT1998(7)SC211; 1999(1)SCALE196; (1998)9SCC161

Excerpt

- labour & servicesappointment: [s.b. sinha & dr. mukundakam sharma, jj] appellants amongst others rank listed by public service commission on requisition made by state no vacancy, however, filled by state - state passing order that no vacancy exists - order challenged by some rank listed candidates - high court on finding that vacancy position was wrongly reported directing state to appoint rank listed candidates - writ appeal filed by state - appellants getting impleaded in writ appeal - writ appellate court as per concession made by state directing appointment only of original petitioners held, appellants having approached court belatedly cannot complain of discrimination. moreover, merely because they are rank listed they have no right to be appointed. .....in favour of the appellants. that suit was decreed by the trial court. the high court dismissed the second appeal filed on behalf of the appellants.3. in this appeal the judgment and decree of the trial court, court of appeal and the high court have been challenged.4. it was urged on behalf of the appellants that civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in question filed on behalf of the respondents, in view of section 26(1)(b) of the haryana ceiling on land holdings act, 1972 which is as follows :26. bar of jurisdiction.- (1) no civil court shall have jurisdiction to:(a) entertain or proceed with a suit for specific performance of a contract for transfer of land which affects the right of the state government to the surplus area under this act; or(b) settle, decide or deal with any matter which is under this act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the financial commissioner, the collector or the prescribed authority.(2) no order of the financial commissioner, the commissioner, the collector or the prescribed authority made under or in pursuance of this act shall be called in question in any court.the bar of the jurisdiction of the civil court has been considered by this court from time to time and recently it has been examined in the case of shiv kumar chandha v. municipal corpn. of delhi, : [1993]3scr522 by a bench of three judges.5. according to us in view of clear bar proscribed by section 26(1)(b) of the haryana ceiling of land holdings act, 1972 the suit filed on behalf of the respondents was not maintainable. accordingly, we allow this appeal and dismiss the suit filed on behalf of the respondents. there shall be no order as to costs.6. we make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim made on behalf of the respondents.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. The appellants are the allottees of the lands which had been declared surplus in the year 1960 under the provisions of the Pepsu Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, 1955. The plaintiffs-respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'respondents') are the heirs of the original landholder Ganga Sahai who died on 17-5-1967.

2. It appears that the State Government allotted the lands in question in the year 1980 to the appellants treating them as landless. In the same year a suit was filed on behalf of the respondents, alleging that the declaration of the lands as surplus was not complete because the said lands had not been utilised and as such no allotment could have been made in favour of the appellants. That suit was decreed by the trial Court. The High Court dismissed the second appeal filed on behalf of the appellants.

3. In this appeal the judgment and decree of the trial court, court of appeal and the High Court have been challenged.

4. It was urged on behalf of the appellants that civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in question filed on behalf of the respondents, in view of Section 26(1)(b) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 which is as follows :

26. Bar of jurisdiction.- (1) No civil court shall have jurisdiction to:

(a) entertain or proceed with a suit for specific performance of a contract for transfer of land which affects the right of the State Government to the surplus area under this Act; or

(b) settle, decide or deal with any matter which is under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Financial Commissioner, the Collector or the Prescribed Authority.

(2) No order of the Financial Commissioner, the Commissioner, the Collector or the prescribed authority made under or in pursuance of this Act shall be called in question in any court.

The bar of the jurisdiction of the civil court has been considered by this Court from time to time and recently it has been examined in the case of Shiv Kumar Chandha v. Municipal Corpn. of Delhi, : [1993]3SCR522 by a Bench of three Judges.

5. According to us in view of clear bar proscribed by Section 26(1)(b) of the Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1972 the suit filed on behalf of the respondents was not maintainable. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and dismiss the suit filed on behalf of the respondents. There shall be no order as to costs.

6. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim made on behalf of the respondents.

Same Court & Year Supreme Court of India · 1996 Same Parties Azad and Others vs Dharampal and Others Same Subject Civil;Property Same Judge N.P. Singh and; S.B. Majmudar, JJ. Acts & Sections Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 - Sections 26(1); ...

Civil;Property