UNION OF INDIA Vs. HARI RAM MURARI MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, first Class, Narnaul, dated the 26th February, 1959, by which he held that the civil Courts had jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by Hari Ram against the union of India; State of Punjab and the Managing Officer, Evacuee Property, narnaul, in his Court. A few facts in order to understand the nature of dispute between the parties may be noticed here. Muslim owners of land situate within that revenue estates of Narnaul town and buchallpur village forming part of the erstwhile Patiala State on account of communal disturbances and p ending partition of the country migrated to Pakistan somewhere in the middle of the year 1947. The Naib-Tahsildar in pursuance of an order passed by the Nazim, Narnaul, auctioned lease of the land so left by Muslim owners in these two revenue estates for Kharif 2004 Bk. and Rabi 2005 Bk. on 174-2004 Bk. corresponding to 1st August, 1947. Hari Ram plaintiff was the highest bidder. He offered Rs. 61,000 for both the harvests out of which Rs. 5,000 was for kharif and Rs. 56,000 for Habi harvest. Rs. 1,250 were paid by him in cash. The lease was sanctioned on 8-10-1947 (23-6-2004 Bk. ). The Patiala Evacuees (Administration of Property) Ordinance 2004 (No. IX of 2004) had come into force from 5th September, 1947. Hari Ram did not pay anything beyond what he had tendered in advance. After expiry of two harvests the Collector, District Mohindergarh, issued him a notice to show cause as to why the balance of the amount and the land revenue should not be realised from him. He filed certain objections which were overruled. The Collector finally passed an order dated the 27th September, 1950, copy exhibit D. B. directing him to pay the balance of the lease money within ten days failing which the same was to be realised by all means available under the law. Hari Ram felt aggrieved from this order and filed an appeal which was dismissed on 30th April, 1951, by the Additional Custodian, Evacuee Property, Pepsu. His revision against the above, however, was allowed by the Deputy Custodian-General, India, on 16th June, 1955, and the case remanded to the Additional custodian for fresh decision. It was laid before Shri Mohan Lal Dewan, Additional settlement Commissioner and Director, Rehabilitation, Pepsu, Patiala, because the displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Compensation Act) had come into force on 9th October. 1954, section 21 of this Act empowered the Settlement Commissioner to determine the sums payable to the Custodian in respect of any evacuee property, under any agreement, express or implied, lease or other document or otherwise howsoever, for any period prior to the date of acquisition of such property which had not been recovered under Section 48 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as the Evacuee Act ). The evacuee land situate in the above two revenue estates appeared to have been acquired by the Central Government by a general notification under Section 12 of the Compensation Act. Shri Mohan Lal Dewan again heard Hari Ram and passed an order on 17th April, 1956, in the following terras:-

(2.) HARI Ram was not satisfied with the aforesaid order and filed a revision petition which was heard by the Deputy Custodian-General of Evacuee Property, New delhi. It was agreed before him that the leased land had been acquired by the central Government He, therefore, following a Bench decision of this Court in balmukand v. Punjab State, Civil Writ No. 387 of 1955 (Punj), held that he had no jurisdiction to hear the revision petition. Thereupon Hari Ram instituted the present suit on 1st November, 1957, for a declaration that the lease in question was illegal, ineffective and not binding on him, that it stood cancelled by orders of the State of Patiala, and as such no liability under the same was enforceable against him. He also prayed for an injunction restraining the three defendants from recovering any sum on account of the lease and from taking any steps in that behalf. Defendants NOS. 1 and 2 did not contest the suit. The Managing Officer, defendant No. 3, resisted the plaintiff's claim amongst others also on the ground that the suit was not cognizable by a civil Court. The trial Judge framed necessary issues including the one, whether the civil Court had no Jurisdiction to hear the suit which was treated as preliminary and decided against the defendants. The revision petition filed by the latter came up for hearing before Gosain J. who referred it to a larger Bench as in his opinion the question of jurisdiction involved in the case was of great importance and was likely to affect a large number of similar cases and also as the amount involved in the suit was Rs. 61,000 and the proceedings here being in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, none of the parties would have a chance to file a Letters Patent Appeal. The case came up before Tek Chand and Inder Dev Dua JJ. who also for like reasons referred it to still larger Bench. This is how it came up before us.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner in support of his argument that the dispute between the parties was not cognizable by a Civil Court relied on sections 4 (1), 28, 46 and 48 of the Evacuee Act which run as-