UJAGAR SINGH (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ANR.versusPUNJAB STATE & ORS.

                  [2024] 7 S.C.R. 611 : 2024 INSC 497

                 Ujagar Singh (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & Anr.
                                 v.
                         Punjab State & Ors.
                       (Civil Appeal No.1365 of 2011)
                                  09 July 2024
           [Vikram Nath* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.]

                            Issue for Consideration
       Whether the High Court fell in error in dismissing the suit primarily
       on the ground that the Civil Court’s jurisdiction was barred by
       s.21 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 when the issue of
       jurisdiction was not pressed by the respondents during the trial
       court proceedings.

                                  Headnotes†
       Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 – s.21 – Jurisdiction of Civil
       Courts, if barred – Appellants filed suit for declaration and
       perpetual injunction, asserting that the land in question was
       exempt under the Act – They sought declaration that the land
       belonged to the religious and charitable shrine Dam Dama
       Sahib of Una and an injunction to prevent the respondents
       from transferring or declaring it surplus – Trial Court dismissed
       the suit – First Appellate Court partly allowed appeal – High
       Court set aside the judgment of First Appellate court, holding
       that the Civil Court’s jurisdiction was barred u/s.21 of the
       Act – Correctness of:
       Held: The issue of jurisdiction was not pressed by the respondents
       during the Trial Court proceedings – The Trial Court specifically
       recorded that the issue of jurisdiction was not pressed and decided
       it in favour of the plaintiffs – The respondents did not challenge
       this finding before the first appellate Court, and, hence precluded
       from raising it in the second appeal before the High Court – s.21
       of the Land Reforms Act bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts only
       in specific circumstances – (a) suits for specific performance of
       a contract for transfer of land, and – (b) questioning the validity
       of any proceeding or order taken or made under the Act – The
       present suit does not fall under either of these two categories –


* Author
612                                                            [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       The appellants’ suit was essentially for a declaration that the land
       belonged to the religious and charitable shrine Dam Dama Sahib,
       and there was no challenge to the validity of any order under the
       Act – The Civil Court alone has the jurisdiction to decide and
       declare whether the land belonged to the religious shrine or to
       Tikka Devinder Singh in his personal capacity – The suit filed by
       the appellants was not a challenge to the validity of the surplus
       order but a suit for declaration regarding the ownership of the
       land – Matter remitted back to High Court for fresh consideration
       on merits. [Paras 5, 7, 8]
                                  List of Acts
       Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972.
                               List of Keywords
       Suit for declaration and perpetual injunction; Surplus land; Bar of
       jurisdiction of Civil Courts; Section 21 of the Land Reforms Act;
       Land dedicated to religious and charitable institution; Religious
       shrine; Dam Dama Baba Sahib Singh of Una; Transfer of land.
                              Case Arising From
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1365 of 2011
       From the Judgment and Order dated 09.03.2010 of the High Court of
       Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 250 of 1983
                           Appearances for Parties
       P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv., Ms. Diya Kapur, Mrs. Pragya Baghel, Raghav
       Kumar, Aditya Ladha, Ms. Gahena Gambani, Vishal Banshal, Advs.
       for the Appellants.
       Ms. Bhakti Pasrija, D.A.G., Karan Sharma, Moksh Pasrija, Ms.
       Princy Sharma, Rishabh Sharma, Ms. Urvi Kashiwal, Advs. for the
       Respondents.
                  Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
                                   Judgment
       Vikram Nath, J.
1.     The present appeal assails the correctness of the judgment and
       order dated 09.03.2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab &
       Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A No. 250 of 1983, whereby the High
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                         613

         Ujagar Singh (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & Anr. v. Punjab State & Ors.


      Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 25.9.1982 of the
      Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur. The High Court held that the
      Civil Court’s jurisdiction was barred under Section 21 of the Punjab
      Land Reforms Act, 19721.
2.    The background of this case is as follows:
      2.1 The appellants, followers of the religious shrine of Dam Dama
          Baba Sahib Singh of Una, filed a suit for declaration and
          perpetual injunction against the respondents and one Smt.
          Sangeet Kaur, daughter of Baba Madhusudan Singh Sahib Una.
          The appellants contended that the land detailed in the headnote
          of the plaint was dedicated to the religious and charitable
          institution Dam Dama Sahib of Una, under the management
          and supervision of Baba Madhusudan Singh.
      2.2 The appellants pleaded that the shrine was worshipped by them
          and countless Sikhs. They asserted that Shri Kala Dhari, the
          founder of Una and a descendant of Baba Nanak, established
          the shrine, which was later managed by his successors. Shri
          Sahib Singh, the successor of Shri Kala Dhari, established
          another shrine at Quilla Jawahar Singh in Gujranwala (now in
          Pakistan), where followers gifted land for religious and charitable
          purposes. The income from these lands was used for maintaining
          the shrine and other charitable activities.
      2.3 Upon the partition of India, 1440 kanals and 8 marlas of land
          were allotted to the Bedi families of Una in lieu of their land in
          Pakistan, including 735 kanals and 7 marlas allotted to Tikka
          Devinder Singh, a descendant of Baba Sahib Singh. The
          appellants argued that this land, though recorded in the name
          of Tikka Devinder Singh, was actually meant for the shrine and
          managed by Baba Madhusudan Singh.
      2.4 The appellants claimed that despite not having the right to
          transfer the land, Baba Madhusudan Singh transferred 156
          kanals and 8 marlas to the Agriculture Department of Punjab
          and 330 kanals and 14 marlas to his daughter, Sangeet Kaur.
          These transfers, the appellants contended, were illegal and not
          binding on the worshippers of the shrine.


1    In short, the “Land Reforms Act”
614                                                         [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


       2.5 The Government of Punjab initiated proceedings to declare
           part of this land as surplus. The Collector, Agrarian, Hoshiarpur,
           declared 20.0943 standard acres of the land as surplus on
           28.06.1976. The appellants filed a suit for declaration and
           perpetual injunction, asserting that the land was of religious and
           charitable nature, and thus exempt under the Land Reforms
           Act. They sought a declaration that the land belonged to Dam
           Dama Sahib of Una and an injunction to prevent the respondents
           from transferring or declaring it surplus.
       2.6 The Trial Court framed several issues for determination, including
           whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit under
           Section 21 of the Land Reforms Act. The Trial Court noted that
           the issue of jurisdiction was not pressed by the defendants
           during the proceedings and, regardless, decided it in favour
           of the plaintiffs. After considering the evidence, the Trial Court
           dismissed the suit on 15.12.1980, holding that the appellants
           failed to prove that the land was dedicated to a religious and
           charitable institution.
       2.7 Aggrieved by the dismissal, the appellants filed an appeal before
           the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur. The First Appellate
           Court, by judgment and decree dated 25.09.1982, partly allowed
           the appeal. The Appellate Court concluded that 133/290 share
           of the land in the suit was charitable and belonged to Dam
           Dama Baba Sahib Singh of Una. The court held that this share
           could not be declared surplus by the Collector and restrained
           the respondents from making further transfers of this share of
           the land.
3.     The respondents, dissatisfied with the First Appellate Court’s
       judgment, filed a Regular Second Appeal before the High Court of
       Punjab & Haryana. The High Court, vide its order dated 09.03.2010,
       set aside the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge,
       holding that the Civil Court’s jurisdiction was barred under Section
       21 of the Land Reforms Act. The High Court emphasized that the
       appellants had not challenged the order declaring the land surplus
       before the appropriate authorities under the Act, and thus, the suit
       was not maintainable. The same has been challenged giving rise
       to the present appeal.
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                           615

       Ujagar Singh (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & Anr. v. Punjab State & Ors.


4.   Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court is of the opinion
     that the High Court fell in error in dismissing the suit primarily on
     the ground that the Civil Court’s jurisdiction was barred by Section
     21 of the Land Reforms Act.
5.   It is pertinent to note that the issue of jurisdiction was not pressed by
     the respondents during the Trial Court proceedings. The Trial Court
     specifically recorded that the issue of jurisdiction was not pressed
     and decided it in favour of the plaintiffs. The respondents did not
     challenge this finding in the First Appellate Court, and hence, they
     were precluded from raising it in the second appeal before the High
     Court.
6.   Section 21 of the Land Reforms Act reads as follows:
           “21. Bar of jurisdiction.
           (1) Save as provided by or under this Act, the validity of
           any proceedings or order taken or made under this Act
           shall not be called in question in any court or before any
           other authority.
           (2) No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any
           suit, or proceed with any suit instituted after the appointed
           day, for specific performance of a contract for transfer of
           land which affects the right of the State Government to
           the surplus area under this Act.”
7.   Section 21 of the Land Reforms Act bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts
     only in specific circumstances: (a) suits for specific performance of
     a contract for transfer of land, and (b) questioning the validity of any
     proceeding or order taken or made under the Act. The present suit
     does not fall under either of these two categories. The appellants’
     suit was essentially for a declaration that the land belonged to the
     religious and charitable shrine Dam Dama Sahib, and there was no
     challenge to the validity of any order under the Act. The Civil Court
     alone has the jurisdiction to decide and declare whether the land
     belonged to the religious shrine or to Tikka Devinder Singh in his
     personal capacity. The suit filed by the appellants was not a challenge
     to the validity of the surplus order but a suit for declaration regarding
     the ownership of the land.
616                                                                [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                           Digital Supreme Court Reports


8.     In view of the above, the High Court’s order is set aside. The matter
       is remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits
       in accordance with law.
9.     The appeal is accordingly allowed as above.
10. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

       Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Bibhuti Bhushan Bose
                                   (With assistance from : Geethika. K, LCRA)