Municipal Council Pali vs Shiv Lal & Ors on 1 December, 2008

S.B.C. REVISION Pet. No.168/2008 - Municipal Council Pali vs. Shiv Lal and others
S.B.C. REVISION Pet. No.167/2008 - Municipal Council Pali vs. Shiv Lal and others
Order dt: 1/12/2008

                                            1/5

             S.B.CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.168/2008
             (Municipal Council Pali vs. Shiv Lal and others)

             S.B.CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.167/2008
               (Municipal Council, Pali vs. Shiv Lal & Ors.)

                         DATE OF ORDER : 1/12/2008

               HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI


Mr.Yashwant Mehta and
Mr.T.S.Champawat, for the petitioner.
Mr.Narendra Singh for the respondents.


1.      Heard learned counsels.


2.      These two revisions petitions are directed against the order of

learned trial court dated 28/3/2008 and 23/4/2008, whereby, the

learned trial court rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC

of Municipal Council, Pali, whereby, Municipal Council submitted

that the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 was not

maintainable against it, the Municipal Council being falling within

the definition of `Government' and excluded from the ambit and

scope of Section 6 of the said Act.



3.      Learned counsel for the Municipal Council drew the attention

of the Court towards the definition of Municipality under Section 3
 S.B.C. REVISION Pet. No.168/2008 - Municipal Council Pali vs. Shiv Lal and others
S.B.C. REVISION Pet. No.167/2008 - Municipal Council Pali vs. Shiv Lal and others
Order dt: 1/12/2008

                                            2/5

(16) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, which is reproduced

hereunder:-


         "(16) `Municipality', That is to say, nagarpalika means
         an institution (by whatever name called) of self-
         government for the urban areas, in existence at the
         time of commencement of, or constituted in
         accordance with, the provisions of, the Act"


4.      He also drew the attention of the Court towards Section 6 of the

Specific Relief Act, 1963, which is also reproduced hereunder:-


          "Section 6. Suit by person dispossessed of immovable
          property.-
          (1) If any person is dispossessed without his consent
          of immovable property otherwise than in due course of
          law, he or any person claiming through him may, by
          suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any
          other title that may be set up in such suit.

          (2) No suit under this Section shall be brought -
          (a) after the expiry of six months from the date of
          dispossession; or
          (b) against the Government.

          (3) No appeal shall lie from any order or decree
          passed in any suit instituted under this section, nor
          shall any review of any such order or decree be
          allowed.

          (4) Nothing in this section shall bar any person
          from suing to establish his title to such property and to
          recover possession thereof."
 S.B.C. REVISION Pet. No.168/2008 - Municipal Council Pali vs. Shiv Lal and others
S.B.C. REVISION Pet. No.167/2008 - Municipal Council Pali vs. Shiv Lal and others
Order dt: 1/12/2008

                                            3/5

5.      Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that obviously the

purpose of excluding the Government from the ambit and scope of

Section 6 is to ensure that dispossession from municipal property by

Government agency is not involved in the litigation under Section 6

of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which is a summary proceedings for

claiming back the possession within six months from the date of

dispossession irrespective of any other title that may be set up in such

suit. He submitted that the said suit was mainly against the petitioner-

Municipal Council, Pali and respondent-plaintiff was clearly found

to be encroachee over the land of Municipal Council, therefore, he

was dispossessed from the said land.



6.      Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, however, opposed

the submissions and submits that the Municipal Council cannot be

said to be part of State as the words `self government' have been used

in Section 3(16) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959. He

submitted that the learned trial court has not erred in rejecting the

application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.



7.      Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of
 S.B.C. REVISION Pet. No.168/2008 - Municipal Council Pali vs. Shiv Lal and others
S.B.C. REVISION Pet. No.167/2008 - Municipal Council Pali vs. Shiv Lal and others
Order dt: 1/12/2008

                                            4/5

definitions reproduced above, this Court is satisfied that Section 6 of

the Specific Relief Act, 1963 being a remedy of summary nature

against the dispossession of a person without his consent of

immovable property otherwise than in due course of law excludes the

Government from its ambit and scope. Hardly any debate is required

to be held, to hold that the Municipality is part of Government and it

is defined as an Institution of self-government for urban areas and it

works under the enactment of State Legislation. Therefore, it is a part

of Government and works under the full control of State Government

even through the elected bodies like Municipal Councils, Municipal

Boards and Municipal Corporations.



8.      This courts, thus, cannot find any force in the submissions of

learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff that the Municipal

Council is not a part of State or Government and cannot be excluded

from the ambit and scope of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act,

1963. The suit against Government under Section 6 of the Act having,

thus, obviously being barred by the provisions of Section 6(2) of the

Act, the learned trial court has committed an error in rejecting the

said application of the petitioner-Municipal Council, Pali, under
 S.B.C. REVISION Pet. No.168/2008 - Municipal Council Pali vs. Shiv Lal and others
S.B.C. REVISION Pet. No.167/2008 - Municipal Council Pali vs. Shiv Lal and others
Order dt: 1/12/2008

                                            5/5

Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.



9.       Consequently, these revision petitions of Municipal Council

are allowed and the impugned orders of the learned trial court dated

28/3/2008 and 23/4/2008 respectively are quashed and set aside and

applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC of the petitioner-Municipal

Council, Pali stand allowed. Consequently, suit no.2/2008 (Shiv Lal

& Ors vs. Municipal Council, Pali) stands dismissed. No order as to

costs.



                                                     (DR.VINEET KOTHARI), J.

item no.8
baweja/-