1986 (12) TMI 382 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the civil suit after the insertion of Clause (ee) in Section 87(1) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908.
2. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts versus Revenue Officers under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act.
3. Interpretation of statutory provisions and legislative intent.
4. Presumption of correctness of entries in revenue records.
5. Applicability of Section 258 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Civil Suit:
The primary issue was whether a civil suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession was maintainable after the insertion of Clause (ee) in Section 87(1) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. The court held that such a civil suit remains maintainable. The insertion of Clause (ee) did not expressly or impliedly bar the jurisdiction of Civil Courts. The court emphasized that Section 87 does not indicate an express bar against civil suits, and there is no statutory language suggesting that the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is ousted.

2. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts versus Revenue Officers:
The court examined the jurisdictional boundaries between Civil Courts and Revenue Officers. It was argued that questions relating to title or possession should be agitated before a Revenue Officer under Section 87. However, the court concluded that Section 87 provides a special and additional remedy without derogating the civil rights of parties. The court highlighted that Section 258 only bars suits to vary, modify, or set aside decisions of Revenue Officers in specific cases and does not create a blanket bar against civil jurisdiction.

3. Interpretation of Statutory Provisions and Legislative Intent:
The court delved into the legislative history and the broader purpose of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. The insertion of Clause (ee) aimed to bring disputes regarding title or interest in land within the purview of Revenue Officers but did not intend to oust Civil Courts' jurisdiction. The court underscored that the legislative intent was not to abrogate the remedy of civil suits but to provide an additional forum for resolving disputes.

4. Presumption of Correctness of Entries in Revenue Records:
The court discussed the presumptions attached to entries in the record-of-rights under Section 84. These entries are presumed correct until proven otherwise. However, this presumption does not bar civil suits challenging the correctness of such entries. The court noted that the remedy under Section 87 is available within a narrow limitation period of three months, which does not preclude subsequent civil suits for declaration of title or possession.

5. Applicability of Section 258:
Section 258 bars suits to vary, modify, or set aside decisions of Revenue Officers in specific cases, but this bar is conditional. The court clarified that Section 258 applies only if there is a prior decision by a Revenue Officer under Section 87. If no such decision exists, the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is not barred. The court emphasized that Section 258 does not create an absolute bar and allows civil suits on grounds of fraud or want of jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that a civil suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession remains maintainable even after the insertion of Clause (ee) in Section 87(1) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the maintainability of the civil suits and upholding the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts. The court reiterated the principle that exclusion of civil jurisdiction must be clearly expressed or necessarily implied, neither of which was found in the statutory provisions under consideration.