JUDGMENT B.K. Rathi, J.
1. The respondent No. 1 filed the suit against the appellants and respondent No. 2 for injunction to restrain them from demolishing the house in dispute No. 33/2 Stanley Road, Allahabad. It is contended that the respondent No. 1 purchased Plot No. 36 from Hari Mohan Tandon on 3.12.1980. He submitted a plan for sanction for construction of the house before the appellant on 14.9.1981. It was not sanctioned and, therefore, the respondent No. 1 on 16.12.1981, served a notice on the appellant that and, therefore, either the plan be sanctioned or if there is any objection, he may be informed. No reply was given by the appellant. Therefore, on 27.12.1981 the respondent No. 1 again served a notice that he is starting the constructions. The constructions were complete regarding which the Information was given and the house was given number 33/2 Stanley Road, Allahabad and was also assessed to house tax. However, later on the appellant treated the constructions as illegal and served notice for demolition. The respondent No. 1 was ready to compound the matter but the request for compounding was also rejected, hence the suit was filed. The appellants contested the suit and it is contended that the house has been constructed without sanction of the plan and, therefore, it is liable to be demolished. It was further pleaded that the civil court has no Jurisdiction to try the suit.
2. The trial court has held that the appellants have no right to demolish the house and the Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. The suit was decreed by the trial court. The appeal preferred by the appellant was also dismissed. Therefore, the appellant has preferred this second appeal.
3. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law :
-Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the provisions contained in the U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act. 1973?"
4. I have heard Sri Ashok Mohlley, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri A.S. Diwaker, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1.
5. This appeal was admitted only on one question of law and the parties have confined their arguments to the said question only. It is contended that the suit is not maintainable in view of the provisions of U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The perusal of the provision show that Section 15 deals with the application for permission to raise construction and also regarding grant of permission. Section 15A deals with the completion certificate. The material section which has been referred to is Section 27 which provide for the order regarding demolition of building. Clause (2) provide that if the order of demolition of building is passed by the Development Authority, the aggrieved person may appeal to the Chairman. Clause (3) provides that the Chairman can decide the matter. Clause (4) provides that the decision of the Chairman on the appeal and subject to only such decision, the order under Sub-section (1), shall be final and shall not be questioned in any court.
6. The other provision referred to is Section 37 of the Act which provides that every decision of the Chairman on appeal, and subject only to any decision on appeal (if it lies and is preferred), the order of the Vice-chairman or other officer under Section 15, or Section 27, shall be final and shall not be questioned in any Court. Sub-clause (4) of Section 41 of the Act further provides that every order of the State Government made in exercise of the powers conferred by this Act shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court.
7. On the basis of these provisions. It has been argued that the provisions of the Act are self-contained and they provide appropriate remedy to the person aggrieved. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the civil court is expressly barred and the Court cannot entertain the suit under Section 9. C.P.C. Learned counsel in support of the argument has referred to the few cases :
The first case is Jitendra Nath Biswas v. Empire of India and Ceylone Tea Co.. AIR 1990 SC 255. This was a case regarding industrial dispute- The suit was filed for reinstatement and back wages. It was held that the relief cannot be granted by the civil court and the jurisdiction is barred.
The second case referred to is Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlakar Shantaram Wadke, AIR 1975 SC 2238. In this case also, the jurisdiction of the civil court was held to be barred in cases where the dispute is in regard to industrial disputes.
The third case referred to is State of West Bengal v. Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.. AIR 1970 SC 1298. In this case, it was held that the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred in the matter of levy of tax as special Tribunal has been created.
The fourth case referred to is Annamreddi Bodayya v. Lokanarapu Ramaswamy, AIR 1984 SC 1726. In this case, It was held that the question of "ryot" can be decided by the Settlement Officer only and jurisdiction of the civil court is barred.
8. I have considered the law laid down in all these cases. They are on different points and have no direct application in the facts of the present case. It may be also mentioned that in the State of West Bengal, the Apex Court has held that
"where the statute gives a finality to the orders of the special Tribunals in the matter of levy of tax, the civil court's jurisdiction may be held to be excluded, if there is adequate remedy to do what the civil court would normally do in a suit". Therefore, in the light of this observation, it is to be seen whether the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred in the present case.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent has also referred to the decision in Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh. AIR 1969 SC 78. In this case, the provisions of Section 9, C.P.C. were exhaustively considered and the principles regarding exclusion of Jurisdiction of the civil court were laid down. Principle No. 1 alone is important in the present case which is as follows :
"(1) Where the statute gives a finality to the orders of the special Tribunals, the civil court's jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the civil court would normally do in a suit. Such provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory Tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure."
10. This provides that the jurisdiction is barred only if there is adequate remedy to do what the civil court would normally do in a suit. This was also the view expressed in the case of State of West Bengal (supra). In view of this, it is to be seen whether the jurisdiction of the civil court is excluded.
11. Section 27 provides for service of notice for the demolition of the building. However, it is contended by the respondent that no notice was served. No procedure has been prescribed nor there is any provision for producing evidence. Therefore, the remedy provided under Section 27 of the Act cannot be said to be an adequate remedy so as to infer that the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred.
12. I, therefore, find that the jurisdiction of the civil court to decide the suit is not barred.
13. No other point has been pressed in this appeal.
14. The appeal is, therefore, without merit and is hereby dismissed.
Comments