Mohd. Hamid Hussain, J. - (1.) THIS is a second appeal by Ram Kumar plaintiff. He filed a suit in the court of the Munsif for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his possession over plots Nos. 324 and 325/1, situated in village Ladar, Pargana and Tahsil Maudha, district Hamirpur.
(2.) THE plaint allegations were that the plaintiff was in possession of the disputed plots since before the abolition of Zamindari, and these plots had formed the agricultural Chak of 30 Bighas of the plaintiff but by mistake the Lekhpal had wrongly entered the disputed plots in the revenue papers as Sirdari of some other persons, and later on account of the fictitious and incorrect entries in the revenue papers the name of Gopali defendant no. 1 came to be recorded ; that on account of the incorrect entries the defendant threatened to dispossess the plaintiff necessitating the filing of the suit for permanent injunction after giving notice to the Gram Sabha and the State of Uttar Pradesh. THEse allegations were denied by the defendant Gopali who asserted that the plaintiff was never in possession of the disputed plots and that these plots formed the joint tenancy of Har Bishal and Sheo Bishal, and under the provisions of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act the disputed plots were declared 'surplus land' of the aforesaid tenants, and thereafter these disputed plots vested in the Government which executed a Patta in favour of the defendant Gopali, and by virtue of this Patta he (Gopali) has been in possession and is the Sirdar of the disputed plots. It was also contended that the plaintiff did not raise any objection in the proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act and. therefore the disputed plots were declared 'surplus land', and the order of the Prescribed Authority in that regard became final and conclusive and the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. On the pleadings of the parties a preliminary :issue was framed by the Munsif to the effect : " Whether the court has no jurisdiction to try the suit ? " On this issue the Munsif recorded the finding that according to the plaint allegations the plaintiff wanted a declaration of his title as Sirdar of the :disputed land and this could only be done under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act in the revenue court, and that the plaintiff by the present suit wanted to nullify the effect of the two enactments, that is, the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The Munsif accordingly held that he had no jurisdiction to try the suit, and he further opined that the plaint need not be returned for presentation to the proper court but it should be dismissed. He also observed that the plaintiff may take recourse to the remedy open to him under the existing enactments. Against this judgment and decree of the Munsif the plaintiff went up in appeal and the learned Civil Judge dimissed the appeal holding that the relief sought in the suit could be granted by the revenue court, and consequently the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred under Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, and further that the plaintiff having failed to file any objection under sub-Section (3) of Section 14 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act before the Prescribed Authority in respect of the disputed plots which had been declared as 'surplus land' the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief from the civil court. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed with costs by the learned Civil Judge.
(3.) IN this second appeal by the plaintiff, it has been vehemently contended by Sri R. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, firstly, that on the finding that on the plaint allegations the plaintiff could get his relief from the revenue court and the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred under Section 331 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the court below ought to have returned the plaint to the plaintiff for being presented before the revenue court and not to have dismissed the plaintiff's suit ; and secondly, that the plaintiff not being a party to the proceedings taken under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act there was no bar to the plaintiff instituting the present suit in the civil court for issue of permanent injunction. IN support of the second contention learned counsel has placed reliance on the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case Upper Ganges Sugar Mills, Ltd. v. Civil Judge, Bijnor, AIR 1970 Allahabad 130. Sri R. Pandey has been heard at length in support of the above contentions. Sri R. R. K. Trivedi, learned counsel for the respondents, has contended that the learned Munsif was justified in dismissing the suit, holding that the civil court has no jurisdiction, and not returning the plaint to the plaintiff for filing in the revenue court. According to the learned counsel Rule 10 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the plaint shall at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the court in which the suit should have been instituted, but since the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act had culminated by the publication of the notification under Section 14 of the said Act the suit could not have been filed even in the revenue court, and therefore the Munsif was justified in dismissing the suit and in refusing to return the plaint to the plaintiff for being presented to the proper court. According to the learned counsel, after the publication of the notification under Section 14 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, all rights, titles and interests of persons in such land stand extinguished and the 'surplus land' vest in the Government, and thereafter no person could claim any interest in such land.;