Civil court jurisdiction barred where Panchayat lease challenge falls within statutory powers of the Assistant Collector.

Civil court jurisdiction is plenary under Section 9 CPC unless excluded expressly or by necessary implication, and exclusionary provisions must be strictly construed by examining the special statute's scheme and remedy. Section 13 of the Act bars civil courts from deciding matters within the revenue authorities' competence and from questioning actions taken by them. Section 10-A authorises the Assistant Collector of the First Grade to examine the legality, propriety, fraud, concealment of facts, or detriment to the Panchayat in relation to a Panchayat lease and to cancel or vary it after hearing the parties. Because the plaint attacked the auction and lease as illegal and void for breach of the Rules, the dispute fell within that statutory domain and the civil court had no jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the civil court's jurisdiction was barred to entertain a suit challenging the legality of a Panchayat lease on the ground that the matter fell within the powers conferred on the Assistant Collector of the First Grade under the Act.

Analysis: The jurisdiction of civil courts is plenary under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure unless it is excluded expressly or by necessary implication. A statute ousting civil jurisdiction must be strictly construed, and the court must examine the scheme, object, and remedy provided by the special law. Applying these principles, Section 13 of the Act bars civil court jurisdiction in matters which the revenue authorities are empowered to determine, and also bars questioning the legality of actions taken by such authorities. Section 10-A empowers the Assistant Collector of the First Grade to examine the legality, propriety, fraud, concealment of facts, or detriment to the Panchayat in relation to a lease entered into by the Panchayat and to cancel or vary such lease after hearing the parties. The plaint itself challenged the auction and lease as illegal and void for violation of the Rules, which brought the dispute within the statutory authority's domain. The impugned lease was said to be illegal, but not a nullity, so the civil court could not retain jurisdiction on that basis.

Conclusion: The civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and the challenge to the lease had to be pursued before the appropriate authority under the Act.

---