TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court declares Revenue authorities' judgments invalid, transfers title suit back to Civil Court.</h1> The High Court quashed the judgments of the Revenue authorities, declaring them invalid due to lack of jurisdiction and unconstitutional provisions of the ... - Issues:Challenge to judgments of Assistant Settlement Officer and Charge Officer under Bihar Tenancy Act 1970 - Constitutionality of provisions - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts - Transfer of title suit to Revenue Court - Validity of judgments - Lack of jurisdiction in Revenue authorities.Analysis:The petitioners filed a writ application seeking to quash the judgments of the Assistant Settlement Officer and Charge Officer under the Bihar Tenancy Act 1970. The petitioners had initiated a title suit in the Civil Court for declaration of their title and confirmation of possession over ancestral properties. However, during the pendency of the suit, the Civil Court transferred the case to the Revenue Court due to the amended provisions of the Bihar Tenancy Act 1970, which barred Civil Courts from entertaining such matters. The judgments of the Revenue authorities were challenged based on the constitutional validity of the provisions and the lack of jurisdiction in the Revenue authorities.The High Court referred to a Full Bench decision in the case of Nand Kumar Roy v. State of Bihar, which declared certain provisions of the Bihar Tenancy Act 1970 as constitutionally invalid. The Court held that suits pending in Civil Courts for declaration of title, confirmation of possession, or recovery of possession should remain in Civil Courts, even if the survey entry was challenged. Therefore, the judgments of the Revenue authorities under the amended provisions were deemed invalid and without jurisdiction.The Court emphasized that lack of jurisdiction in an authority cannot be cured by consent or acquiescence of the parties. Citing precedent, the Court reiterated that a Court must have the legal competence to entertain a dispute for its decision to be binding. Consequently, the judgments of the Assistant Settlement Officer and Charge Officer were held to be without jurisdiction and inoperative.In the final decision, the Court quashed the judgments of the Revenue authorities and directed the records of the title suit to be transmitted back to the Civil Court for disposal in accordance with the law. The Court noted the defendants' absence and made no order for costs. The application was deemed successful, and the rule issued by the Court was made absolute.In conclusion, the High Court found that the judgments of the Revenue authorities were invalid due to lack of jurisdiction and the unconstitutional provisions of the Bihar Tenancy Act 1970. The Court upheld the petitioners' right to have their title suit adjudicated by the Civil Court and ordered the transfer of the case back to the appropriate forum for resolution.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
