Civil court jurisdiction and mandatory enquiry under land restoration law limit exclusion of suits against Collector orders

Section 170-B restoration proceedings require the revenue authority to conduct the prescribed enquiry into transfer and possession before acting. The text notes that a Collector's ex parte order, made without that enquiry, may be treated as lacking compliance with statutory procedure, and that the presumption of unlawful possession under Section 170-B is rebuttable. It also states that the bar under Section 257 is to be construed strictly, so civil court jurisdiction is excluded only where the statute clearly bars the suit and the authority has acted in conformity with the Act and basic judicial procedure. A later insertion of a specific bar for Section 170-B matters does not affect a suit filed before that amendment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the civil suit challenging the Collector's order under Section 170-B of the Land Revenue Code was barred by Section 257, and whether the Collector's order could be declared null and void for want of enquiry and compliance with the statutory procedure.

Analysis: The dispute concerned restoration of land under Section 170-B, which requires the revenue authority to make an enquiry into the transfer and the circumstances of possession. The record showed that the Collector proceeded ex parte and did not conduct the enquiry contemplated by the provision. The presumption under Section 170-B regarding possession without lawful authority was held to be rebuttable, and the civil court's jurisdiction is not excluded unless the statutory bar is clear and the authority has acted in conformity with the Act and the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. Section 257 was construed strictly, and the later insertion of the specific bar covering matters under Section 170-B could not defeat a suit instituted before that amendment. The question of civil court jurisdiction was therefore answered in the context of non-compliance with the statutory procedure and absence of a complete jurisdictional bar.

Conclusion: The lower appellate court was justified in declaring the Collector's order dated 05.06.1985 null and void, and the bar of civil court jurisdiction did not defeat the suit.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the decree of the first appellate court was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory bar on civil court jurisdiction will not apply where the authority has failed to conduct the enquiry required by the special enactment and has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, especially when the specific exclusion relied upon was not yet applicable to the suit.

---