Summary
The civil suit challenging the competent authority’s agricultural-ceiling order was barred by the statutory remedy scheme, although the separate request for a declaration of customary divorce was cognisable. That divorce was not proved: earlier deeds, revenue records and objections treated the parties as married and never asserted the alleged old divorce. The High Court exceeded second-appeal limits by reversing supported concurrent factual findings. Dismissal of the suit was restored.
Issues
- Whether the civil court could invalidate the statutory surplus-land determination.
- Whether the asserted customary divorce justified excluding the wife’s inherited land from the family holding.
Held
- The statutory appeals and revision governed challenge to the competent authority’s ceiling order, and section 46 barred a civil suit against that determination. The divorce-declaration relief was separately maintainable but did not remove the ceiling-order bar. (¶ 7)
- Supported concurrent findings rejected the claimed divorce and the deed relied on. Reversal through fresh factual appraisal exceeded the High Court’s section 100 jurisdiction. (¶ 8)
- The wife’s 1971 sale deed and revenue records described her as married; neither spouse asserted divorce before the competent authority. Mere separate residence was distinct from divorce, and the belated deed was found contrived to escape the ceiling law. (¶ 9–9.1)
Result
State appeal allowed without costs; High Court judgment set aside and concurrent judgments dismissing the suit restored.