JUDGMENT
Madan Mohan Prasad, J.
1. These two applications have been heard together in pursuance of an order to that effect and in view of the questions arising therein being common. They are directed against two similar orders passed by the Court below by which it has returned the plaint of two suits to be filed in a proper court on the ground that they were beyond the jurisdiction of the court.
2. It is necessary to state that river Ghaghra and Ganga intervene some parts of the territories of the States of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. The mid-stream is taken to be the boundary between the two States. It has on account of the inherent changing nature of the boundary line, to be determined from year to year. On account of the process of alluvion and diluvion the territories either become or cease to be the territories of one or the other state. In order to remove this constant difficulty came to be passed the Bihar and Uttar Pradesh (Alteration of Boundaries) Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’. The provisions of this Act enabled fixation of permanent boundaries between the two States by fixing pillars in the river and not leaving the mid stream boundary to be determined from year to year.
3. According to the petitioners who are plaintiffs in the suits of which I am going to speak hereafter, there are certain lands belonging to them situate in village Mahazi Adh-Sijhua which at the relevant time (the time of filing of the suits) appertained to the State of Bihar. The State of Uttar Pradesh, however, on the basis of the claim that the lands formed part of the territory of their State acquired spine, of the lands as beyond the prescribed ceiling area allowed under the Uttar Pradesh Act I of 1961. Further in respect of those lands, Agricultural Income Tax under the Uttar Pradesh Act XII of 1962 was levied on the petitioners. Bring aggrieved with this petitioners filed two title suits for declaration that the lands appertain to the State of Bihar and the State of Uttar Pradesh has no jurisdiction either to acquire the lands under the Act aforesaid or to levy Agricultural Income Tax on the basis of the other Act mentioned above and for the necessary reliefs in that respect.
4. During the course of proceeding of the suits in the year 1976, the State of Uttar Pradesh (Opposite party No. 1) filed applications in both the suits before the court below that in view of the fact that after the alteration of the boundaries under the Act of 1968 the lands fell within the State of Uttar Pradesh and for that reason the court should order return of the plaints and send the records of the cases to the corresponding court in the district of Ballia. The petitioners filed objection and prayed for dismissal of the application aforesaid. Documents were filed by the parties in support of their assertions. The learned Munsif (4th Court) of Chapra, ultimately passed similar orders, aforesaid in the two suits on the 27th of November, 1976.
5. The short point raised by learned Counsel for the petitioners is that in view of Section 30 of the Act the court below had no jurisdiction to decide finally as to whether the pending suits stood transferred to the corresponding Court in the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is urged that in view of the question having arisen before the court below the proper course for it was to make a reference to the High Court, the decision of which is final in the matter.
6. Before I consider the point raised it is necessary to state a preliminary objection raised by learned Counsel for the opposite party. It has been urged that the orders in these two cases being to return the plaint, obviously they come within the scope of Rule 10 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the code’) and a right of appeal is provided against such orders and thus a revision is not maintainable. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the orders even though they contain the observation that the plaintiffs should file their plaints in proper Courts do not come within the mischief of Rule 10 for the reasons that the provisions of Rule 10 apply only to cases where a suit, on the date it was filed, was not filed before the proper court before which it should have been instituted. It is only in such a case that plaint is returned in accordance with Rule 10 to be presented to the court in which the suit should have been instituted. In my view this contention is well founded. Rule 19 does not prescribe return of the plaint in any case in which subsequent to the institution of the suit, the Court ceases to have territorial jurisdiction on account of any law passed subsequently. The orders cannot, therefore, in the eye of law come within the mischief of Rule 10 or Order VII of the Code.
7. Before I discuss the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners in respect of the merits of the case it may be necessary to briefly notice the provisions of the Act, The case is said to be one of first impression, there being no decided case on the point. The statement of objects and reasons contains what I have said earlier in respect of the back-ground of the enactment, and it would appear from the preamble also. Sections 1 and 2 of the Act contain the short title and definitions respectively. Section 3 provides for the transfer of the territories of Ballia district (in Uttar Pradesh) lying between the fixed boundary and the deep stream of rivers Ghaghra and Ganga and for the transfer to the State of Uttar Pradesh all the territories of Saran (In Bihar) lying between the fixed boundary and the deep stream of river Ghaghra and Ganga. Then it provides for the manner of fixation of the boundary by the authority for the purpose. There is a schedule attached to the Act which gives a boundary line in general and the authority is asked to fix the boundary to be generally in conformity with the same. The authority has, however, been given the power to rationalise the boundary by making such alterations to the one given in the schedule, as may be necessary. The decision of the authority on matters relating to the description of the boundary is to be final. The authority is further given the power to deter-mine the location of the points at which the boundary pillars were to be constructed and for that purpose to enter upon any persons’ land. The authority was empowered to prepare a map of the transferred territories and forward such map to the Central Government to be published in such manner as it thought fit. The State Governments were asked to provide for the administration of the territories transferred. The transfer of territories under this section was made effective with effect from an appointed day which means the day which the Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette appoint. Section 4 refers to the consequent amendment with regard to the territories of the State to be made to the first Schedule of the Constitution. Sections 3 and 4 come under part II of the Act. Then comes part III having two Sections 5 and 6 under the heading “Representation in the legislatures”. It is not necessary to refer to these provisions. Next comes part IV which has Sections 7 to 10 and they relate to High Courts Sections 7 and 8 extend the jurisdiction of the High Courts of Patna and Allahabad respectively to the transferred territories as from the appointed day. Section 8 refers to the right of the Advocates of the two High Courts to appear in a proceeding transferred under Sections 7 and 8. Section 10 is an interpretation Section Part V consisting of Sections 11 and 12 relating to authorisation of expenditure and Part VI consisting of Sections 13 to 24 relates to apportionment of assests and liabilities. They are not relevant to the discussions of the question at issue. Then comes Part VII having the heading “Legal and Miscellaneous Provisions”. Section 25 is in respect of State Financial Corporations and State Electricity Boards, This is also not relevant. Section 26, however, speaks of territorial extent of laws. According to this section the provisions of Section 3 shall not be deemed to have effected any change in the territories to which any law in force immediately before the appointed day extends or applies, and territorial references in any such law to the State of Bihar or Uttar Pradesh shall, until otherwise provided by a competent Legislature or other competent authority, be construed as meaning the territories within that state immediately before the appointed day. Section 27 gives the State powers to adapt law. Section 28 empowers any court, tribunal or authority, required or empowered to enforce such law to construe the law in such manner as may be necessary or proper in regard to the matter before the court, tribunal or authority. Section 29 speaks of legal proceedings where in the State of Bihar or Uttar Pradesh was a party immediately before the appointed day and provides that the corresponding State after the alteration of the boundary will be deemed to have been substituted. Then comes Section 30 relating to transfer of pending proceedings. I will discuss this hereafter. Section 31 refers to the right of pleaders to practice in those courts in the transferred territories. Section 32 provides for the construction of the boundary pillars. Section 33 speaks about the authority of demarcation done before the commencement of the Act. Section 34 provides that the provisions of this Act shall have the effect notwithstanding any law, custom or usage which is inconsistent therewith Section 35 enables the President to do anything to give effect to the provisions of this Act in case any difficulty arises. Section 36 enables the Central Government to make rules then comes the schedule.
8. Section 30 of the Act with which we are concerned is as follows;
30. Transfer of pending proceedings.-(1) Every proceeding pending immediately before the appointed day before a Court (other than a High Court), tribunal, authority or officer in any area which on that day falls within the State of Bihar or Uttar Pradesh shall, if it is a proceeding relatable exclusively to any part of the territories which as from that day are the territories of the other State, stand transferred to the corresponding court, tribunal, authority, or officer in the other State.
(2) If any question arise as to whether any proceeding should stand transferred under Sub-section (1) it shall be referred to the High Court having jurisdiction in respect of the area in which the court, tribunal, authority or officer before which or before whom, such proceeding is pending on the appointed day is functioning, and the decision of that High Court shall be final.
(3) In this section:
(a) “Proceeding” includes any suit, case or appeal; and
(b) ‘Corresponding court, tribunal, authority or officer’ in a State means-
(i) the court, tribunal authority or officer in which or before whom, the proceeding would have laid if the proceeding had been instituted after the appointed day ; or
(ii) in case of doubt, such court, tribunal authority or officer in that State as may be determined after the appointed day by the Government of that State, or before the appointed day by the Government of the other State, to be the corresponding court, tribunal, authority or officer.
As we have seen the only provisions which may be relevant in one way or the other to the discussion of the question raised are Sections 26, 28 and 30. I have already stated that Section 26 purports to lay down that Section 3 shall not have the effect of any change in the territories to which any law was in force immediately before the appointed day and that territorial references in such law remain unaffected until the appointed day. Obviously, therefore, the law as it stood before the appointed day and as it applied to certain territory which is now a transferred territory is to apply to that territory as if there had been no transfer of territories until the appointed day. Of course, the Legislature may provide otherwise it so chooses. Secondly, in view of Section 28 the court which is seized of a suit or legal proceeding is entitled to construe laws notwithstanding that there is no provision made for adaptation of a law made before the appointed day. As we have seen Section 21 provides for adaptation of laws. But, in case there is no such provision or insufficient provision the court, tribunal or authority is competent to construe the law. It appears after analysis of the provision of the Act that the only provisions which deals with a pending proceeding and the question as to what would happen to it is Section 30 alone. A reading of the section makes it obvious that if a proceeding relates exclusively to any part of the territories which from the appointed day are the territories of the other State such proceedings stands transferred to the corresponding court in the other State. The emphasis must be put on the “relatable exclusively”. The reason is not far to seek. If lands in a dispute in suit have been transferred as a whole to another State obviously the proceedings should be decided by a court in the other state which acquires territorial jurisdiction from the appointed day. Section 30 does not answer the question as to what would happen to the proceedings, which relate to lands falling partly in the territory of one State and partly in that of another. Obviously, therefore, the general law contained in the Code in respect of suits where partly the lands fall within the jurisdiction of one court and partly within that of another, shall apply. It must be deemed that the Legislature knew this provision of the Code and in that view of the matter it did not consider it necessary to provide for the same. But it was necessary to provide for suits or proceedings in respect of lands which at one time were within the territorial jurisdiction of one Court in one State whereas after the appointed day they were within the territorial jurisdiction of the court in the other State. It is thus obvious that Section 30 provides that the proceedings pending before the appointed day in a court or tribunal in the State of Bihar or Uttar Pradesh shall stand transferred in the circumstances mentioned in the section. It will be relevant to mention that by operation of law all such proceedings will be deemed to have stood transferred and no one in such a case has to decide whether they are to be transferred or not provided the conditions laid down in the Section 30 are fulfilled.
9. Sub-section (2) of Section 30, however, deals with a case where any question arises as to whether such proceedings stands transferred. In my view, where there is any doubt or dispute with regard to the question whether such proceedings stand transferred, this sub-section applies. The term “if any question arises” is wide enough to include not merely a dispute raised by the parties to the proceedings or others interested in the proceedings but even the doubt in the mind of the court or tribunal itself. There may be pending suits before a court and the court may be in doubt as to whether they relate exclusively to any part of the territories which have been transferred. In such a situation the Court or the tribunal may adopt the procedure prescribed by Sub-section (2). It must be noticed that this sub-section provides that in a situation where a doubt or dispute arises the matter shall be referred to the High Court having jurisdiction in respect of the area concerned. Obviously, therefore, where there is a dispute or a doubt it is not open to the court or authority to resolve the same but it has got to make reference to the High Court. Reading the Act as a whole I have not been able to find out any provision which gives any body else the authority to decide the matter which arises out of Section 30 regarding the fate of a suit or a proceeding. It appears from the section itself that a proceeding includes suit, case and appeal.
10. A question may be asked as to why the Court which is seized of the matter may not be able to decide as to whether it has jurisdiction over the suit which relates to the lands which have been transferred to the other State. Ordinarily a court has the power to decide the question of its own jurisdiction but this provision is a special provision arising out of the contingency created by the alteration of boundaries. The Legislature must be taken to be aware of the possibilities of a dispute arising between the parties or between the two States concerned as to whether the court in one State has jurisdiction or it is the other. That being an important question the Legislature appears to have, considered it necessary that the matter should be referred to the High Court for its decision, which would be filial and not to leave it to the court, tribunal or authority to determine the same.
11. It follows from that I have said above that in the present case the dispute having arisen before the learned Mjinsif it was not open to him to decide the question that he had no jurisdiction in view of the territories having been transferred to the State of Uttar Pradesh and, therefore, to ask the parties to file their suits in the proper courts in Uttar Pradesh. In that view of the matter the orders passed by the learned Munsif have got to be set aside.
12. In the result the applications are allowed. The orders passed by the learned Munsif are set aside and he is directed to make a reference to this Court on the question as to whether the suits before him stand transferred under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. He will no doubt forward to this Court all the relevant materials in that respect. In the particular circumstances of the cases there will be no order as to costs.