Summary
The statutory bar under Section 21 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act did not exclude a civil suit seeking a declaration that disputed land belonged to a religious shrine. The suit concerned ownership rather than invalidation of a surplus-land order or specific performance. The High Court’s dismissal on jurisdiction was set aside and the second appeal remitted for fresh consideration on merits.
Issues
- Whether Section 21 excluded the civil court’s jurisdiction over the shrine-ownership declaration.
- Whether the defendants could revive a jurisdiction objection not pursued in the earlier proceedings.
Provisions considered
- Section 21, Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972The bar concerns challenges to proceedings or orders under the Act and specified specific-performance suits affecting State surplus-area rights. The ownership declaration sought here fell outside those categories. (¶¶ 6, 7)
Held
- The defendants had not pressed the jurisdiction objection at trial, where it was decided for the plaintiffs, and did not challenge that finding before the first appellate court. In these circumstances the Court held them precluded from raising it in second appeal. (¶ 5)
- The suit’s essential character was a request to declare whether the land belonged to the religious and charitable shrine or was held personally by the recorded owner. It was not a challenge to the validity of the surplus order and was not a suit for specific performance. Section 21 therefore did not bar it; the civil court had jurisdiction to decide ownership. (¶¶ 6, 7)
- The High Court erred in disposing of the suit on jurisdiction. Its judgment was set aside and the matter remitted to it for fresh consideration on merits according to law; the Supreme Court did not itself determine the ownership dispute. (¶¶ 4, 8, 9, 10)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs; High Court judgment set aside and matter remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits.