MIRCHUMAL SAMANDAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
UNION OF INDIA
Click here to view full judgement.
S.H.Sheth, J. -
(1.)The plaintiff is a displaced person from West Pakistan. He does not hold a verified claim. He is. therefore, a non-claimant. He has been residing in a tenement situate in Varashiya Colony at Baroda which is a Government built colony. The tenement in his occupation was allotted to him. The Central Government some time back took decision to dispose of all the tenements in Varashiya Colony. The tenement in the occupation of the plaintiff was therefore also to be. disposed of. The plaintiff applied to the appropriate authority to transfer to him the tenement in his occupation. He relied upon Rule 42 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation habilitation) Rules, 1955 in support of his application. The appropriate officer rejected his application and -put to sale his tenement. The defendant No. 5 purchased it at the auction sale. The plaintiff, therefore filed, the present suit for a declaration that the auction sale of the tenement in his possession was ultra vires the powers of the officer of the Central Government and that, therefore, the said auction had not conferred any title upon the defendant No. 5. He joined to the suit as defendants the Union of India, the Chief Settlement Commissioner, the Regional Settlement Commissioner, State of Gujarat and auction purchaser Bhagwandas Kandomal.
(2.)It was inter alia contended in defence by the defendants that the suit was not maintainable because the plaintiff had no right enforceable at law.
(3.)The learned trial Judge raised preliminary issues relating to the maintainability of the suit and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain and try such a suit. He held that the plaintiff had no right enforceable at law and, therefore, his suit could not be maintained. He also held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred by Section 36 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. 1954. In view of his findings on these two preliminary issues he dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed to the District Court against the decree passed by the learned trial Judge. The learned Extra Assistant Judge at Baroda who heard the appeal concur-red in the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge and dismissed the appeal.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.