Summary
A landlord's 1974 suit for possession and arrears of rent of land let in 1970 for a petrol pump was decreed, but the First Appellate Court and the High Court held that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction because the land had not been declared non-agricultural under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, the High Court directing return of the plaint. The Supreme Court held that both courts overlooked the declaration under Section 143 that had attained finality on 14.03.1986 during the pendency of the litigation, that such a subsequent event going to the root of the case must be noticed in appeal, that non-registration of the declaration (a duty cast on the Assistant Collector, not the landowner) was of no consequence, and that the Civil Court had jurisdiction; the matter was remitted to the First Appellate Court for decision on merits.
Issues
- Whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction over a suit for possession and arrears of rent of land let for a non-agricultural purpose, where the declaration under Section 143 of the UPZALR Act was made after the suit was filed but during the pendency of the proceedings.
- Whether a declaration under Section 143 of the UPZALR Act that was not registered under Section 145 could be relied upon.
- Whether the High Court was right to direct return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC.
Provisions considered
- Section 143, Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950The lower appellate courts held that absent a declaration under Section 143 the land retained its agricultural character and the Civil Court's jurisdiction was barred. The Supreme Court found it undisputed that initial approval under Section 143 was granted on 10.12.1975 and the land was finally declared non-agricultural by the Deputy Collector's order of 14.03.1986, before the First Appellate Court's judgment of 27.07.1992; neither court noticed this. The argument that the declaration had to exist on the date of filing of the suit was rejected. (¶¶ 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16)
- Section 145, Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950Section 145 casts no duty on the landowner to register the Section 143 declaration; it is the Assistant Collector in charge of the Sub-Division who must forward a copy of the declaration to the Sub-Registrar, and registration is free of cost notwithstanding the Registration Act, 1908. Registration is merely a procedure, and a deficiency by the officers cannot deprive the landowner of the benefit of the declaration. (¶¶ 9, 17)
- Order VII Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The High Court, upholding the finding that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction, had substituted the First Appellate Court's decree with an order returning the plaint for presentation to the appropriate forum. The Supreme Court held that after such return the Revenue Court would have no jurisdiction, the land having been declared non-agricultural during the litigation, and set the order aside. (¶¶ 1, 5, 14, 15, 18)
Held
- An appeal is a continuation of the proceedings, and developments during the pendency of the suit or appeal that go to the root of the case can always be taken notice of to avoid multiplicity of litigation. (¶ 15)
- Where the land was let from the inception, under a registered tenancy agreement, for a non-agricultural purpose (a petrol pump), and had been finally declared non-agricultural under Section 143 of the UPZALR Act on 14.03.1986, before the First Appellate Court's judgment of 27.07.1992, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit; the Revenue Court would have no jurisdiction after return of the plaint. (¶¶ 11, 15)
- The contention that the suit was not maintainable because the Section 143 declaration was not available on the date of filing of the suit is rejected. (¶ 16)
- Non-registration of the Section 143 declaration does not render it a waste paper: Section 145 places the duty of forwarding the declaration to the Sub-Registrar on the Assistant Collector, registration is free of cost, and no duty is cast on the landowner; the landowner cannot be deprived of the benefit of the declaration merely because of a deficiency on the part of the officers. (¶ 17)
- Both the First Appellate Court and the High Court erred in deciding the jurisdictional question without noticing that the land had been declared non-agricultural during the pendency of the litigation. (¶¶ 11, 13)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment and decree dated 15.02.2024 set aside; case remitted to the First Appellate Court to decide the appeal on merits within six months of receipt of the order, the litigation being over fifty years old; pending applications disposed of; no order as to costs.