as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, every o*dw njade by a competent
authority or nn appellate ofHcer under this chapter shall be final and shall not be
called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceedings.
(2) No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding
in respect of any matter of which the cognizance can be taken of and disposed of
bv any authority, empowered by this Act or the rules made thereunder.
COMMENTARY
JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction - Allottee became absolute owner Local authority under the
Housing Board Act still has power to regulate the violations by allottee - Svresh
Kumar v. Municipal Corporation, Faridabad, 2006(2) HRR 106 D.B.
Adjudication - Debt Settlement Officer to adjudicate upon the qucstjon
whether a loan is a deb! or a person is a debtor - In absence of any such decision
Civil Court can go into the matter after giving proper opportunity to the parties If
the Civil Court comes to the conclusion that the matter is covered by the provi
sions of the Act It must stay its hands - Bhola Singh v. Lachhman Doss 1980
PLJ 232 (DB)= 1980 RLR 546
Consent -An order without jurisdiction is non-est - Consent does not make
the order legal and cannot iuvest the Court with jurisdiction - Saraswati D&vl v.
Sanl Rum and otters, 1983 PL J 249. ,
Interpretation - Is well accepted principle of interpretation or statutes that
tho soope of the provisions of an Act would firstly hnvc to he determined per force
of the language used or employed by the legislature in the legislation - The objects
and reasons would be considered when the language of the Act is capable of two
interpretations - Natural meaning of the language should be adhered to Vijay
Kumar Bhambari v. Ram Nath Bnjaj 1990 H.R.IL 151.
Unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context - In view of
this qualification, the court has not only to took at Hits words but also to examine
the context and collocation hi the light of the object of the Act and the purpose for
which a particular provision was : lade by the legislature - Smt. Pushpa Devi and
others, v. Mttkhi Ram I990 H.R.R. 123 (S.C.)
The Central Government is empowered to extend to the Union territory
not only the original enactment of the State Legislature but also the averments
thereto made by the State Legislature - Ramenh Uriah etc. u Union of India
and others - 1989 HRR 398 (S.C.) - 1988 HRR 433 (FB) upheld.
Lack of jurisdiction - Question ofj urisdiction can be raised first time even
at the times ofsecond appeal Where the original Court is lacking the jurisdiction -
It can be raised even at the time of execution when the decree is a n,ullity - Ajtt
Mohinder Singh v. Smt. Bhuni and others. AIR 1987 (P & H) 167 1986
Rwent LHWS 48. ' . .. . n- t
Merger - The order of the Add!. Director C/H was affirmed by the Single
Judge of the High Court and the same was maintained in L.P.A dismissing the
Civil Writ Petition - Civil court cannot proceed into the matter on the doctrine of
merger - Darshan Singh v. Sub Judxe lit. Class, ffoshiarpur - 1988 H.R.R.
483.
' Where the possibility of settlement, was more in the High Court than any
elsewhere it was held that the High Court Was proper Forum to dispose of the
case - Order of the High Court remitting the case to tho tiial.Court was set aside
by the Supreme Court - Abbey Singh Surana v. The Indian Rayon and Indus
trial Ltd.- 1988 H.R.R 506.
518 Haryana Housing Board Act, 1971 (as extended to Chandigarh)
Non s*t order - A person who was not a party to an order passed by a
Tribunal against him can fi le a suit for dteultinitiun to the effect that the Order is not
binding upon him, and non est so for as he is concerned - Such person is not
entitled to get such order declared void but can seek declaration that the order qua
him is inetteotive - State of Haryana v. Vinod Kumar and others, AIR 1986 (P
&. H) 407 RB. - 1986 Rev. L.R. 331.
Pleadings - It is an established principle of law that for determining the
jurisdiction of the court, pleas oTth plaintiff in the plaint arc to be taken into
consideration - Chief Secretary of Punjab v, Chawaii, 1980 PLJ 10,
Question of jurisdiction can be decided by taking into consideration pleas
in the plaint of the plaintiff- Karnalt SlngJi v. Jaggar Singh, AIR 1984 (P & H)
294 - 1034 (2) LLR 143 - See also 1PS7 HRR 530.
Question of jurisHic-.tinn ran be determined from the ease pleaded in the
plaint - Chandu La! v. S.K. Chhiber 1983 PLJ 559,
Preliminary issue - An issue does not cease to be an issue of law by the
mere fact that it contains some conditions of purchase order based upon some
facts - The issue should be treated as a preliminary issue as an issue of law - M/
S. United Vanaspati Lid. v. M/$. Shfi Vardhman SalvaX Private Ltd. - 1988
H.R.R. 641.
Concurrent jurisdiction - An Application for appointing an arbitrator was
pending in one Court while another Court in the same matter proceeded to extend
tht? time fur the appointment of any arbitrator, it was held that the second COUtt
has no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter - Ncfiru Ram Gael Engineers v.
Haryana State. 1989 H.R.R. 218.
Section 55 • THE HARYANA HOUSING BOARD ACT, 1971 (AS EXTENDED TO CHANDIGARH)
Section 55. Finality vf utters wid bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts
the-haryana-housing-board-act-1971-as-extended-to-chandigarh-sec-55.json
•
Section 55
{
"act_title": "THE HARYANA HOUSING BOARD ACT, 1971 (AS EXTENDED TO CHANDIGARH)",
"act_slug": "the-haryana-housing-board-act-1971-as-extended-to-chandigarh",
"section_label": "Section",
"section": {
"number": "55",
"title": "Section 55. Finality vf utters wid bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts",
"chapter": null,
"content": "as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, every o*dw njade by a competent \nauthority or nn appellate ofHcer under this chapter shall be final and shall not be \ncalled in question in any original suit, application or execution proceedings. \n(2) No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding \nin respect of any matter of which the cognizance can be taken of and disposed of \nbv any authority, empowered by this Act or the rules made thereunder. \nCOMMENTARY \nJURISDICTION \nJurisdiction - Allottee became absolute owner Local authority under the \nHousing Board Act still has power to regulate the violations by allottee - Svresh \nKumar v. Municipal Corporation, Faridabad, 2006(2) HRR 106 D.B. \nAdjudication - Debt Settlement Officer to adjudicate upon the qucstjon \nwhether a loan is a deb! or a person is a debtor - In absence of any such decision \nCivil Court can go into the matter after giving proper opportunity to the parties If \nthe Civil Court comes to the conclusion that the matter is covered by the provi\nsions of the Act It must stay its hands - Bhola Singh v. Lachhman Doss 1980 \nPLJ 232 (DB)= 1980 RLR 546 \nConsent -An order without jurisdiction is non-est - Consent does not make \nthe order legal and cannot iuvest the Court with jurisdiction - Saraswati D&vl v. \nSanl Rum and otters, 1983 PL J 249. , \nInterpretation - Is well accepted principle of interpretation or statutes that \ntho soope of the provisions of an Act would firstly hnvc to he determined per force \nof the language used or employed by the legislature in the legislation - The objects \nand reasons would be considered when the language of the Act is capable of two \ninterpretations - Natural meaning of the language should be adhered to Vijay \nKumar Bhambari v. Ram Nath Bnjaj 1990 H.R.IL 151. \nUnless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context - In view of \nthis qualification, the court has not only to took at Hits words but also to examine \nthe context and collocation hi the light of the object of the Act and the purpose for \nwhich a particular provision was : lade by the legislature - Smt. Pushpa Devi and \nothers, v. Mttkhi Ram I990 H.R.R. 123 (S.C.) \nThe Central Government is empowered to extend to the Union territory \nnot only the original enactment of the State Legislature but also the averments \nthereto made by the State Legislature - Ramenh Uriah etc. u Union of India \nand others - 1989 HRR 398 (S.C.) - 1988 HRR 433 (FB) upheld. \nLack of jurisdiction - Question ofj urisdiction can be raised first time even \nat the times ofsecond appeal Where the original Court is lacking the jurisdiction -\nIt can be raised even at the time of execution when the decree is a n,ullity - Ajtt \nMohinder Singh v. Smt. Bhuni and others. AIR 1987 (P & H) 167 1986 \nRwent LHWS 48. ' . .. . n- t \nMerger - The order of the Add!. Director C/H was affirmed by the Single \nJudge of the High Court and the same was maintained in L.P.A dismissing the \nCivil Writ Petition - Civil court cannot proceed into the matter on the doctrine of \nmerger - Darshan Singh v. Sub Judxe lit. Class, ffoshiarpur - 1988 H.R.R. \n483. \n' Where the possibility of settlement, was more in the High Court than any \nelsewhere it was held that the High Court Was proper Forum to dispose of the \ncase - Order of the High Court remitting the case to tho tiial.Court was set aside \nby the Supreme Court - Abbey Singh Surana v. The Indian Rayon and Indus\ntrial Ltd.- 1988 H.R.R 506. \n518 Haryana Housing Board Act, 1971 (as extended to Chandigarh) \nNon s*t order - A person who was not a party to an order passed by a \nTribunal against him can fi le a suit for dteultinitiun to the effect that the Order is not \nbinding upon him, and non est so for as he is concerned - Such person is not \nentitled to get such order declared void but can seek declaration that the order qua \nhim is inetteotive - State of Haryana v. Vinod Kumar and others, AIR 1986 (P \n&. H) 407 RB. - 1986 Rev. L.R. 331. \nPleadings - It is an established principle of law that for determining the \njurisdiction of the court, pleas oTth plaintiff in the plaint arc to be taken into \nconsideration - Chief Secretary of Punjab v, Chawaii, 1980 PLJ 10, \nQuestion of jurisdiction can be decided by taking into consideration pleas \nin the plaint of the plaintiff- Karnalt SlngJi v. Jaggar Singh, AIR 1984 (P & H) \n294 - 1034 (2) LLR 143 - See also 1PS7 HRR 530. \nQuestion of jurisHic-.tinn ran be determined from the ease pleaded in the \nplaint - Chandu La! v. S.K. Chhiber 1983 PLJ 559, \nPreliminary issue - An issue does not cease to be an issue of law by the \nmere fact that it contains some conditions of purchase order based upon some \nfacts - The issue should be treated as a preliminary issue as an issue of law - M/ \nS. United Vanaspati Lid. v. M/$. Shfi Vardhman SalvaX Private Ltd. - 1988 \nH.R.R. 641. \nConcurrent jurisdiction - An Application for appointing an arbitrator was \npending in one Court while another Court in the same matter proceeded to extend \ntht? time fur the appointment of any arbitrator, it was held that the second COUtt \nhas no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter - Ncfiru Ram Gael Engineers v. \nHaryana State. 1989 H.R.R. 218.",
"footnote": "",
"is_definition": false,
"sort_order": 500
},
"prev_section": "54",
"next_section": "52"
}