Malkiat Singh vs Harnek Singh

M.S. Liberhan, J.—Harnek Singh respondent filed a suit for declaration that he is the owner of the land in dispute acquired by the Punjab Government vide Notification dated 10. 1. 1983, having purchased the same from Suit. Jagir Kaur vide sale deed dated 17.1.1978. It was claimed that Jagir Kaur was in exclusive possession of a portion, on partition of the land in dispute as a cosharer. The possession was delivered to the plaintiff at the time of sale and a mutation was also sanctioned. Consequential relief, restraining the defendants from recovering the amount awarded on the basis of Jamabandi, or to stake their claim for compensation, was also sought''.

The respondents took various defences including challenging the civil Court jurisdiction to try the suit in view of Sections 9, 12, 18, 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act

The trial Court treated the following issue as the preliminary issue : "Whether jurisdiction of the civil is barred as alleged ?

The trial Court after taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Dr. G.H. Grant v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1966 S.C. 237; Shri Deo Santhan, Chinchwad and others v. Chintaman Dharnidhar Deo and another, AIR 1962 Bombay 214. Md. Imran and others v. Mohd Zafar Momin and others, AIR 1972 Patna 482, Jog Raj and others v. Banarsi Pass alias Bans Gopal (deceased) and others, 1978 PLR 258 and Ram Kumar v. Jagdish and others, 1987(1) All India Land Laws Reporter 58, held that civil Court jurisdiction has not been excluded to determine the question of title of possession between the parties. The Land Acquisition Act does not debar the civil Court jurisdiction except to the extent of the amount of compensation.

The defendants impugned the order of the, Subordinate Judge dated 4.5.1988 through this revision petition.

The Hon''ble Judge at the time of motion hearing observed that ratio of the decisions in 1913 Punjab Records 52 and 1982 Land Laws Reporter 414 runs counter to the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. G.H. Grant''s case (supra) and admitted the revision petition for decision by the Division Bench.

The learned counsel for the petitioners accepts that the law laid down in Dr. G.H. Grant''s case (supra) runs counter to the observations made in 1913 Punjab Records 52 and 1982 Land Laws Reporter 414.

In our considered view, in view of Article 141 of the Constitution of India to the effect that the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the territory of India, nothing survives to be determined or reconciled. Even accepting that the observations made in the judgments referred to above by the learned counsel for the petitioners are contrary to the law laid down in Dr. GA Grant''s case (supra), it would be the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court which would prevail. The law laid down in the other judgments, if any, taking contrary view than the one taken by the Supreme Court would be deemed to have been impliedly overruled or at least cannot be preferred. The above position is not even seriously disputed at the Bar also.

In view of the observations made above, we find no force in the revision petition. The same ''is hereby dismissed.