SMT. SOORAJ AND ORS.versusS.D.O. AND ORS.

A                         SMT. SOORAJ AND ORS.
                                       V.
                               S.D.O. AND ORS.

                             NOVEMBER 22, 1994

B             [K. RAMASWAMY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN,H.]

         Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960-
    Sections 2(gg) and 46-Determination of holding of agricultural lands-
     Validity of-Civil Suit-Whether maintainable-Held, NO-Definition of
    family-Bhoomiswami rights-Claim of major daughters-Applicability of
c   Hindu Succession Act.

         One R who was the Bhoomidar of a total land of 41.49 ac;.·es, died
    in 1960. The Sub-Divisional Officer, a competent authority under the
    Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 while
D   fixing ceiling on the holding of the agricultural lands, determined that
    the widow of the deceased was entitled to only 10.38 acres of land and
    the rest of the land was declared to be 'surplus'. The appellants, the
    major daughters of the deceased challenged the validity of that order
    by filing a civil suit for declaration. They claimed their shares by
    operation of Hindu Succession Act.
E
        The trial court dismissed the suit but, on appeal, it was allowed and
    the suit was decreed. In the second appeal, the High Court reversed the
    decree and confirmed the finding of the trial court.

F        In this appeal, the appellants contended that Bhoomiswami right
    being inheritable its devolution was governed by Section 164 of the
    Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, but it should be subject to the
    operation of the provision of the Hindu Succession Act; that by
    operations of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, only the tenancy
    rights had been excluded from the operation and Bhoomiswami rights
G   were not tenancy rights and, as such, Section 4(2) had become
    inapplicable; and that the appellants were entitled to succeed to the
    estate of their father by operation of Section 8 of the Hindu Successi'ln
    Act.

        Dismissing the appeal, this Court
H
                                    686
                            SOORAJ v. S.D.0.                          687

    HELD: 1.1. The appellants in this case squarely come within 3rd A
Clause of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act,
namely, when the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings
Act, 1960 seeks to determine the holding of the agricultural lands by
operation of sub-section (2) of Section 4.

    The applicability of the Act shall stand excluded and should have no B
effect on the operation of the Agricultural Holding Act, 1960. (689 D)

     1.2. Under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on
Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960, the surplus land shall stand vested in
the State. The State has not been impleaded eo nvmine as a party-
defendant to the suit nor notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. was issued C
to the State. The Sub Divisional Officer, who passed the order is only a
statutory authority under the Ceiling Act. Therefore, without
impleading the State Government or the Collector and without issuing
the notice to the Government as enjoined under Section 80, the suit
itself is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this ground.
                                                                  (689 E, F) D

     1.3. Even otherwise also, section 2 (gg) of the Act defines "family"
means 'husband, wife and their minor children, if any". Admittedly,
the appellants are major daughters and that, therefore, the only person
who satisfies the definition of "family" is the widow of the Bhoomidar.
Accordingly, that determination of the holding as prescribed under the E
Act has been made by a competent authority. Thereby, the appellants
cannot get any right de hors the provisions under the Madhyll Pradesh
Ceiling Act by operation of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Hindu
Succession Act. (689 G, H)

     2. Section 46 of the Ceiling Act, 1960 creates a bar to maintain any F
civil suit to impugn any question settled or decision made or inatter
dealt with by the Competent Authority under the Act. Though none of
these questions have been raised nor dealt with by the courts below
since they are pure questions of law untramelled by any question of
facts this Court has adverted to and found that the suit is not
maintainable. (690 A, C)                                                  G
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1180 of
1984.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 3.9.81 .of the Madhya Pradesh
High Court in S.A.No. 354 of 1979.                                  .H
    688                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R
                                                                                       I-
A         Ranjit Kumar for the Appellants.

          S.S. Khanduja for the Respondents.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered:

          This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and decree of the
B    High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Second Appeal No. 354/79
     dated 3.9.1981. The appellants are the plaintiffs. They are the major
     daughters of one Ratan Singh who was the Bhoomidar of the lands in
     Khasra Nos. 36, 54, 146, 151, 165, 258 and the respective Rakwas
     mentioned therein of a total of 41.49 acres. Ratan Singh died in 1960. The
c    Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 had come into
     force which provides for fixation of ceiling on the holding of the
     agricultural lands. The first defendant, Sub-Divisional Officer, Rahli, Tehsil
     Rahli, determined that the widow ofRatan Singh was entitled to only 10.38
     acres of land and the rest of the land was declared to be 'surplus' vide his
     proceedings dated 1.3.1976. The appellants challenged the validity of that
D    order in Civil Suit No. 34A/76. The declaration sought therein was that "the
     plaintiffs pray that the suit of the plaintiff for declaration be decree and be
     declared that in the lands mentioned in paragraph 1, plaintiffs have 3/4th
     share and defendant No. 1 (the mother) has 114 share and the order dated
      1.3.1976 passed by the S.D.O., defendant No. 1, is unlawful and illegal."
     The trial court dismissed the suit but, on appeal, the Second Additional
E    District Judge, Sagar, allowed and decreed the suit. In the second appeal,
     the High Court reversed the decree and confirmed that of the trial court.

         The High Court had followed the judgment of the Full Bench of the
     High Court in Nahar Hirasingh and Ors. v. Mst, Duka/hin and Ors., AIR
     (1974) MP 141.
F
        Sri Ranjit Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the
   Bhoomiswami right is inheritable and its devolution is governed by Section
   164 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, but it should be subject to
   the operation of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act; 1956. By
   operation of sub-sc:ction (2) of Section 4 of the Act, only the tenancy rights
G have been excluded from the operation and Bhoomiswami rights are not
   tenancy rights but the one devolved by succession of ownership of the lands
   and, as such, Section 4 (2) has become inapplicable. Thereby the appellants
   are entitled to succeed to the estate of their father by operation of Section 8
 - of the Hindu Succession Act. He places reliance on the decision of this
   Court in Bajaya V. Gopikabai and Anr., [1978] 2 sec 542 and Anant Kibe
H and Ors. v. Purushottam Rao and Ors., [1984] Suppl. SCC 175.
                            SOORAJ v. S.D.0.                          689

    In the view we take, !t is not necessary to consider the effect of the A
above two decisions of this Court. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Hindu
Succession A"t reads thus:-

        "(2)   For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that nothing
               contained in this Act shall be deemed to affect the
               provisions of any law for the time being in force providing B
               for the prevention of fragmentation of agricultural holdings
               or for the fu:ation of ceilings or for the devolution of
               tenancy rights in respect of such holdings."

                                                      (emphasis supplied)

               The appellant squarely comes within 3rd Clause of sub-
                                                                            c
               section (2) of Section 4, namely, when the Madhya Pradesh
               Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 seeks to
               determine the holding of the agricultural lands by operation
               of sub-section (2) of Section 4. The applicability of the Act
               shall stand excluded and should have no effect on the D
               operation of the Madhy Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural
               Holdings Act, 1960. The question then is whether the suit as
               such is maintainable. It is seen that under the provisions of
               the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Hold!ngs Act,
               1960, the surplus land shall stand vested in the State. The
               State has not been impleaded eo nomine as a party- E
               defendant to the suit nor notice under Section 80 of C.P.C.
               was issued to the State. The first defendant is only a
               statutory authority under the Ceiling Act. Therefore,
               without impleading the State Government or the Collector
               and without issuing the notice to the Government as
               enjoined under Section 80, the suit itself is not maintainable p
               and is liable to be dismissed on this ground. Even otherwise
               also, Section 2 (gg) of the Act defines "family" means
               "husband, wife and their minor children, if any".
               Admittedly, the appellants are major daughter and that,
               therefore, the only person who satisfies the definition of
               "family" is the widow of Ratan Singh. Accordingly, that G
               determination of the holding as prescribed under the Act
               has been made by a Competent Authority, namely, the first
               defendant. Thereby, the appellants cannot get any right de
                hors the provisions under the Madhy Pradesh Ceiling on
                Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 by operation of sub-
                section (2) of Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act.         H
    690                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             (1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R

A       Section 46 of the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings
    Act creates a bar to maintain anhy civil suit which reads thus:

                    "Save as expressly provided in this Act, no civil court shall
                    have any jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any
                    question which is by or under this Act required to be settled,
B                   decided or dealt with by the competent authority.''

         Thereby, the legislative intention is that the proceedings initiated under
    the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act,
    1960 shall be pursued only in the manner provided thereunder, namely,
    right of appeal and right of revision, and the jurisdiction of Civil Court has
C   been barred to impugn any question settled or decision made or matter dealt
    with by the Competent Authority under the Act. Thereby the civil suit also
    has been barred by operation of Section 46. Though none of these questions
    have been raised nor dealt with by the courts below since they are pure
    questions of law untrammelled by any questions of facts we have adverted
    to and found that the suit is not maintainable for these reasons.
D
         The appeal is accordingly dismissed but, in the circumstances, without
    costs.

    A.G.                                                        Appeal dismissed.