- (1.) In this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant has framed the following substantial questions of law :- i) whether the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit for declaration in which cancellation of allotment under the Act has been challenged despite the specific bar provided in the Statute, ii) whether the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the State Government was not impleaded, and iii) whether the simpliciter suit for declaration was maintainable ? The defendant is in second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Courts below by which suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction, has been decreed.
(2.) In order to unfold the controversy between the parties, a few facts are required to be noticed :- One Ratia, husband of plaintiff No. 1 and father of minor plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3, was allotted 21 Kanals 19 Marlas land by the Allotment Authority vide allotment letter dated 13.08.1976 against which he deposited Rs. 330/- on 04.03.1977 as first installment and Rs. 486.74/- on 28.02.1978 as second installment and took physical possession of land measuring 13 Kanals 19 Marlas comprised in Rect. No. 19, Killa No. 10Min, Rect. No. 21, Killa No. 14Min and 17 Min, out of total land measuring 21 Kanals 19 Marlas. The total price of the land was Rs. 3,300/-, out of which Ratia had paid Rs. 816.74/-. The Allotment Authority, vide its order dated 31.07.1978 and 15.10.1980, cancelled the allotment in favour of Ratia and allotted the land in dispute to the defendant on 29.05.1981. The plaintiffs challenged the orders dated 31.07.1978, 15.10.1980 and 29.05.1981 in the present suit for declaration that these orders are illegal and also sought relief of permanent injunction. In the written statement, the defendant took a plea that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit, suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and on merits it was alleged that allotment in favour of Ratia was cancelled when it was found that he was not eligible as his income was more than Rs. 2,400/- per annum. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court :- "1. Whether the orders dated 31.07.1978, 15.10.1980 and 29.05.1981 of the allotment authority are illegal, void and without jurisdiction and are not binding upon the plaintiff ?OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiffs are owners and in possession of the suit land ?OPD. 3. Whether the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit ?OPD. 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ?OPD. 5. Whether the suit is not competent in the present form ?OPD. 6. Whether the present suit is not maintainable in accordance with Section 41(b)(1) of the Specific Relief Act ?OPD. 7. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction ?OPD. 8. Whether the defendant is entitled to special costs under Section 35-A C.P.C. ?OPD. 9. Relief."
(3.) The plaintiffs examined Phul Patti as PW1, Hazara Singh as PW2 and tendered death certificate of Ratia as Ex.P1, copy of khasra girdawari of Sawni 1981 and Harhi 1982 as Ex.P2, copy of jamabandi for the year 1978-79 as Ex.P3, copy of khasra girdawari for March 1980, 04.10.1980 and 12.03.1981 as Ex.P4, copy of judgment dated 15.10.1980 as Ex.P5, Treasury challan evidencing the payment of Rs. 330/- by Ratia as Ex.P6 and Treasury challan showing the payment of Rs. 486.74/- by Ratia as Ex.P7. In oral evidence, the defendant also examined himself as DW1, Ram Singh as DW2, Balwinder Singh as DW3, Som Dutt as DW4, Munshi Ram as DW5, Har Gopal as DW6, Dina Nath as DW7 and also proved on record copy of the proceedings of delivery of possession as Ex.DW6/1.;