Ujagar Singh (Dead) through LRs. vs. Punjab State & Ors. [July 09, 2024]
Citation: 2024 INSC 497; Civil Appeal No. 1365 of 2011; Bench: Justices Vikram Nath & Prashant Kumar Mishra
Background and Facts
The dispute centered on agricultural land in Punjab, claimed by followers of the Dam Dama Baba Sahib Singh shrine of Una as property dedicated to the religious and charitable institution. The appellants (Ujagar Singh and others) sought a declaration and perpetual injunction, asserting that the land was exempt from being declared surplus under the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, and belonged to the shrine. The State, however, had declared a portion of this land as surplus and sought to transfer it, prompting the suit.
The trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the Additional District Judge partly allowed the claim, recognizing that a specific share (133/290) of the land was charitable and belonged to the shrine, and restrained further transfers of this share. The High Court, however, reversed this, holding that the civil court’s jurisdiction was barred by Section 21 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, as the matter involved surplus land proceedings. The appellants challenged this finding before the Supreme Court.
Key Issues
Whether the civil court’s jurisdiction was barred by Section 21 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, in a suit seeking declaration of land as belonging to a religious and charitable institution.
Whether the suit was, in substance, a challenge to surplus land proceedings or merely a declaration of title.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court held that Section 21 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, bars the jurisdiction of civil courts only in two specific circumstances:
(a) Suits for specific performance of a contract for transfer of land affecting the State’s rights to surplus area;
(b) Suits questioning the validity of any proceeding or order made under the Act.
The Court noted that the present suit did not fall under either category. The appellants’ claim was for a declaration that the land belonged to the Dam Dama Sahib shrine, not a challenge to the validity of any surplus order or for specific performance.
The trial court had specifically recorded that the issue of jurisdiction was not pressed by the respondents, and this finding was not challenged before the first appellate court. Therefore, the respondents were precluded from raising the jurisdictional bar for the first time in second appeal before the High Court.
The Supreme Court clarified that only the civil court could decide the question of whether the land belonged to the religious shrine or to an individual in his personal capacity, as this was a matter of title and not of surplus proceedings under the Act.
The High Court erred in dismissing the suit on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, as the suit was not barred by Section 21 of the Act.
Conclusion and Significance
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remitted the matter for fresh consideration on merits.
The judgment reaffirms that civil courts retain jurisdiction over suits for declaration of title and injunction regarding religious or charitable property, unless the suit specifically falls within the categories barred by Section 21 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972.
The decision protects the rights of religious and charitable institutions to assert their claims over property through civil proceedings, unless expressly barred by statute.
In summary: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that a suit seeking declaration that land belongs to a religious shrine is not barred by Section 21 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, and the civil court has jurisdiction to decide such questions of title.
RELATED Blog
0 comments