Civil Court Cannot Declare Orders Passed Under Urban Land Ceiling Act As Illegal Or Non Est: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the civil courts has no jurisdiction to try suit relating to land which is subject-matter of ceiling proceedings, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.

Civil court cannot declare, orders passed by the authorities under the ULC Act, as illegal or non est, the court said.

In this case, the plaintiff filed a suit against a notification under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 on the ground that the possession was not taken, before the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 came into force. This suit was decreed by the Trial Court. The appeal and thereafter the second appeal was dismissed against this Trial Court judgment. 

In appeal before the Apex Court, the defendant contended that the plaintiff has not questioned the orders passed by the competent authority declaring the land as surplus land and that the suit is not maintainable in view of the provisions of ULC Act.

The court noted that the land in question is in the Urban Agglomeration and covered by the ULC Act, 1976.The court also found that the possession of the land was not only taken but same is utilised for a public purpose. In this context, the bench comprising Justices R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy said.

14. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is a self-contained Code. Various provisions of the Act make it clear that if any orders are passed by the competent authority, there is provision for appeal, revision before the designated appellate and revisional authorities. In view of such remedies available for aggrieved parties, the jurisdiction of the civil courts to try suit relating to land which is subject-matter of ceiling proceedings, stands excluded by implication. Civil court cannot declare, orders passed by the authorities under the ULC Act, as illegal or non est. More so, when such orders have become final, no declaration could have been granted by the civil court

It was contended that, if the suit filed as prayed for is not maintainable, this Court can mould the relief by issuing appropriate directions. In this regard, the bench, while allowing the appeal said: It is trite principle that where the suit is filed with particular pleadings and reliefs, it is to be considered with reference to pleadings on record and the reliefs claimed in the suit only.

Click here to Read/Download Judgment