Jurisdictional bar under public premises law prevents civil suits attacking eviction orders on a supposed nullity theory.

Where the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction & Land Recovery) Act, 1972 entrusts the Collector with deciding whether premises are public premises and provides an appellate remedy, an erroneous classification does not make the eviction order a nullity. A civil suit seeking to invalidate such an order is barred by the express exclusion of civil court jurisdiction under Section 15. The document also notes that concurrent findings by the trial court and first appellate court that the disputed property belonged to the State and was public premises should not be displaced in second appeal on the basis of an unaccepted earlier pleading. The operative effect is that the statutory remedy must be pursued within the Act.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging an eviction order passed under the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction & Land Recovery) Act, 1972 on the footing that the order was a nullity because the property was not public premises. (ii) Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the concurrent finding that the disputed property belonged to the State and was public premises.

Issue (i): Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging an eviction order passed under the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction & Land Recovery) Act, 1972 on the footing that the order was a nullity because the property was not public premises.

Analysis: The Act confers jurisdiction on the Collector to determine whether the property in question is public premises and to proceed against a person found in unauthorised occupation. An erroneous determination on that question does not render the order a nullity. The Act also provides an appeal to the Commissioner to correct such error. The suit filed to invalidate the eviction order was therefore hit by the express bar on civil court jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The suit was barred by Section 15 of the 1972 Act and was not maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the concurrent finding that the disputed property belonged to the State and was public premises.

Analysis: Both the trial court and the first appellate court had concurrently found, on the evidence, that the property belonged to the State Government and was public premises. The High Court reversed that finding mainly on the basis of a prior pleading by the Municipal Committee, although that claim had not been upheld earlier and the Municipality had taken a contrary stand in the suit. The reversal of concurrent findings in second appeal was not warranted on that basis.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in upsetting the concurrent factual finding that the property was public premises.

Final Conclusion: The decree in favour of the respondent could not stand because the civil suit was barred and the concurrent finding that the property was public premises remained undisturbed in law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute entrusts the competent authority with jurisdiction to decide whether premises are public premises and provides an appellate remedy, an erroneous decision on that issue is not a nullity and a civil suit to impeach it is barred by an express jurisdictional exclusion.

---