Assam Land and Revenue Regulation -Conferring Power To Execute Partition On Revenue Authorities Doesn't Bar Civil Court's Jurisdiction To Decide Rights : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently ruled that even though a statute vests an exclusive jurisdiction with the revenue authorities to enforce and execute the partition, it cannot limit the civil court's jurisdiction to decide the contentious issues regarding the declaration of rights, title, and interest over the suit property.

The bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing the appeal filed against the Gauhati High Court decision concerning the partition of the suit property as per the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (Regulation).

The Appellant was granted a declaration of title and joint possession over the suit property with the liberty to seek appropriate remedy, seeking partition of the suit land. Following this, a partition suit was instituted before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue Authority) who declined to partition the suit land on the grounds that the plaintiff was not in actual possession of the land and there was no consent from the other co-sharer.

Against the Revenue Authority's decision, a civil suit seeking partition was preferred before the Civil Court which resulted in dismissal.

An appeal preferred, following which the First Appellate Court allowed the revenue authorities to affect the partition in the Appellant's favor.

Challenging the First Appellate Court's decision, the respondent-defendant filed a second appeal before the High Court, arguing that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to effectuate partition under the Regulation, as this authority exclusively lies with the revenue authorities.

The High Court overturned the First Appellate Court's decision holding that Section 154(1)(e) of the Regulation bars the civil court from exercising its jurisdiction and the revenue court had rightly rejected the prayer of partition under Section 97 as the Appellant's was not in possession of the land which is an essential prerequisite for claiming partition under the Regulation.

Following this an appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, the Appellant contended that the High Court erred in holding that the jurisdiction of the civil court would be barred because if according to the Revenue Authorities, his possession over the suit property was not proved and neither the co-shares consented to the partition of the jointly owned suit property then such issues would only be catered by the civil court.

Setting aside the High Court's ruling, the judgment written by Justice Pardiwala noted that civil court jurisdiction would be restricted when there is a conflict between the provisions of the CPC and any special or local law (in this case, the 1988 Regulation). However, upon observing that the essential requirements for partition under Section 97 of the Regulation were not met, and there was no conflict between the 1988 Regulation and the CPC, the Court concluded that the civil court's jurisdiction to resolve the disputed issue regarding the rights to the suit property would not be excluded under Section 9 of the CPC.

“The plain reading of the provision referred to above would indicate that when anything in the CPC is in conflict with anything in the special or local law or with any special jurisdiction or power conferred or in the special form of procedure prescribed by or under any other law, the Code will not (in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary) prevail so as to override such inconsistent provisions. When there is no conflict between the special or local law and the Code, the Code will apply.”, the court said.

In essence, the Court held that although the special law restricts civil courts from entertaining the suit, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court would not be barred when the dispute involves determining title, possession, or share in the suit property. The Court emphasized that revenue authorities lack the authority to resolve disputes related to property rights; their role is limited to effectuating the partition and granting possession to the decree holder in accordance with the decree. Furthermore, the Court stated that any action by the revenue authority that disregards the decree would be subject to review by the civil court, which could remit the case back to the revenue.

“A reference in this connection may be made to a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Musstt. Rukeya Banu & Ors. v. Musstt. Nazira Banu & Ors. reported in AIR 1928 Cal 130, where it was pointed out that a partition, whether perfect or imperfect, of revenue-paying properties must be made by the Revenue authorities. This follows from a conjoint reading of Sections 96 and 154(1)(e) of the Regulation, 1886 respectively. However, the jurisdiction of the civil court to determine the right of the parties to the property in dispute as well as shares to which they are entitled has not been taken away by the Regulation in question, and it is for the civil court to decide whether the property is or is not liable to partition. The same view applies to other clauses of Section 154. The parties to a suit are entitled to obtain a declaration from the civil court that they have got the right to obtain from the revenue authorities a separation and allotment of their shares in the estate according to their proportionate rights. It is the civil court which will decide whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek partition and to what extent. If it is found by the court that revenue paying properties have to be partitioned among the parties, the court may declare the share of each of the parties and leave them to go to the revenue authorities for making the necessary performance.”, the Court observed.

In this regard, the Court referred to the Gauhati High Court's decision in Ka Trily Tariang v. U. Resdrikson Lyngdoh and Ors. reported in (1984) 2 G.L.R. 8, where it was observed that the jurisdiction conferred upon Revenue authority does not prevent the civil court from adjudicating upon the right to an asset when entitlement is claimed.

Accordingly, the Appeal was allowed.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Parthiv K. Goswami, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kaushik Choudhury, AOR Mr. Saksham Garg, Adv. Mr. Jyotirmoy Chatterjee, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Ms. Mohna, AOR

Case Title: ABDUL REJAK LASKAR VERSUS MAFIZUR RAHMAN & ORS.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1043

Click here to read/download the judgment