A.N.SURTI - (1.) By the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge (J. D.) Anjar (Kutch) the application of the petitioner-defendant was rejected. The petitioner defendant had filed an application EX. 24 stating that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit in question. The petitioner Municipality stated in its application Ex. 24 that the opp onent-plaintiff had filed a suit on an allegation that the suit lands and the structures standing thereon belonged to him and had filed a suit for damages. The petitioner Municipality denied that the suit land belonged to the opponent plaintiff. It is also stated in Ex. 24 that the dispute between the parties is in respect of the ownership rights in regard to the suit land and the trial Court had raised issue No. 1 in regard to the same. It is further stated in Ex. 24 that if there is any dispute between any person and the Municipality in regard to the ownership right of the land situated within the Municipal limits then the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the suit till the competent officer first decides the issue in question. Under the circumstances in Ex. 24 the petitioner Municipality prayed that the plaint filed by the opponent plaintiff should be rejected by the Trial Court under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 The application was resisted by the opponent plaintiff and the learned trial Judge took the view that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not ousted under the circumstances of the case.
(2.) It is under these circumstances that the petitioner Municipality was aggrieved by the impugned order and has filed the present revision application in this Court.
(3.) Y. S. Mankad learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner Municipality invited my attention to sec. 81 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act 1963 which is in the following words; 81 In any municipal borough to which a survey of lands other than lands ordinarily used for the purposes of agriculture only has been or shall be extended under any law for the time being in force where any property or any right in or over any property is claimed by or on behalf of the municipality or by any person as against the municipality it shall be lawful for the Collector after formal enquiry of which due notice has been given to pass an order deciding the claim. (2) any suit instituted in any civil court after the expiration of one year from the date of any order passed by the Collector under sub sec. (1) or if one or more appeals have been made against such order within the period of limitation then from the date of any order passed by the final appellate authority as determined according to sec. 204 of the Land Revenue Code shall be dismissed (although limitation has not been set up as a defence) if the suit is brought to set aside such order or if the relief claimed is inconsistent with such order provided that the plaintiff has had due notice of such order. (3)(a) The powers conferred by this section on a Collector may also be exercised by an Assistant or Deputy Collector or by a Survey Officer as defined in the Land Revenue Code. (b) The formal enquiry referred to in this section shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid Code. (c) Any person shall be deemed to have had due notice of an enquiry or order under this section if notice thereof has been given in accordance with rules made in this behalf by the State Government. ;