(1.) JAI Kishan son of Tara Chand filed suit for declaration against Narain Dass and others to the effect that the order dated 22.11.1983 of the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh exercising the powers of the Central Government under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act), divesting him (plaintiff) of his possession over 3 standard acres of land allotted to his father Tara Chand (deceased) in Village Nurpur Bet, Tehsil and District Ludhiana vide order dated 19.3.1980 of Managing Officer, Ludhiana is arbitrary, void, nullity, inoperative and without jurisdiction being inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and as such not binding on him. It is alleged in the plaint by Jai Kishan that his father Tara Chand owned rural agricultural land in village Kadarbad Tehsil Phalia, District Gujarat, Pakistan. He left that land on the partition of the country. In lieu of that land, he was entitled to the allotment of 3 standard acres, 9 units of agricultural land. The entire land belonging to the plaintiff's father in Pakistan stood mortgaged with plaintiff's uncle Narain Dass for Rs. 800/- only. The land belonging to Narain Dass stood mortgaged with one Jai Gopal for Rs. 2200/-. In lieu of the land left behind in Pakistan, plaintiff's father was allotted 3 standard acres, 9 units of land in village Chaunta, Tehsil and District Ludhiana in the year 1950. Plaintiff's uncle Narain Dass had also been allotted land in village Chaunta. Plaintiff's father had settled the mortgage debt with plaintiff's uncle Narain Dass by surrendering his share in the Bagicha abandoned in Pakistan. It is further alleged in the plaint that in view of family settlement, Narain Dass neither took possession of the land allotted in village Chaunta nor did he make any application for the adjustment and settlement of the mortgage debt under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951. Plaintiff's father remained alive up to the year 1967. During his life time, Narain Dass never claimed mortgaged debt. Subsequently, the allotment made in village Chaunta was cancelled by the Department and fresh allotment was made in the name of plaintiff's father in village Nurpur Bet on 19.3.1980. Plaintiff's uncle Narain Dass whom land had been allotted in village, Chaunta, which stood mortgaged with Jai Gopal neither gave possession of the land to Jai Gopal nor paid him the mortgage debt. Instead, he disposed of his land without paying the mortgage debt. Application made by V.N. Malhotra son of Jai Gopal to the Managing Officer for the recovery of the mortgage debt with interest was filed. Similarly, application submitted by Narain Dass to the Managing Officer claiming allotment of the land in lieu of the land mortgaged with him was filed. Plaintiff in good faith and having love and affection for his uncle Narain Dass deposited Rs. 1000/- in his name in the Government Treasury, vide challan dated 18.4.1980. Although Narain Dass was not entitled to recover the amount as he had not filed any application under the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951. This amount was actually deposited by him in the Parcha Tusdeq, that amount is still intact and Narain Dass can withdraw it from the Treasury. V.N. Malhotra son of Jai Gopal did not further pursue the matter. Narain Dass filed an appeal before the Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Jalandhar ignoring the mortgage amount deposited into the Government Treasury, Ludhiana in his name. Appeal filed by Narain Dass was dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 19.11.1981.
(2.) NARAIN Dass-defendant contested the suit of the plaintiff. It was urged that the entire land belonging to plaintiff's father in Pakistan was mortgaged with him (Narain Dass) with possession for Rs. 1800/- and not for Rs. 800/-. It was denied that plaintiff's father settled mortgage debt with Narain Dass by surrendering his share in the Bagicha left behind in Pakistan. It was denied that Narain Dass did not take possession of the land in village Chaunta. It was denied that he did not make any application for the adjustment and settlement of the mortgage debt. There was no family settlement entered into between him and plaintiff's father as alleged. It was denied that he never claimed mortgage debt during his life time. He has all along been demanding mortgage debt from the father of the plaintiff and from the plaintiff but they had been putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. Allotment made in village Chaunta was cancelled by the Department. Fresh allotment was made in the name of plaintiff's father on 19.3.1980 in village Nurpur Bet, Tehsil Ludhiana. First allotment was got cancelled by the plaintiff mala fide and dishonestly in order to defeat his mortgage claim. He (Narain Dass) on coming to know about the fresh allotment immediately moved application with the Tehsildar (Sales) for transferring possession as mortgagee. It was denied that the land of the defendant in village Chaunta stood mortgaged with Jai Gopal with possession. Jai Gopal was not entitled to any land. It was denied that the land of the defendant was sold without paying mortgage debt. It was denied that Narain Dass was not entitled to recover the amount. It was denied that Narain Dass withdrew Rs. 1000 from the Treasury. The order passed by the Financial Commissioner dated 22.11.1983 exercising the powers of the Central Government under Section 33 of the Act is legal, valid, operative, effective and binding on the plaintiff. It was denied that Narain Dass could not claim relief under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.
(3.) VIDE order dated 14.12.1984, Subordinate Judge III Class, Ludhiana decreed the plaintiff's suit for declaration that the order dated 22.11.1983 of the Financial Commissioner Punjab, Chandigarh directing that Narain Dass be given possession of the land as mortgagee which has been allotted to Jai Kishan is null and void, being inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and not binding upon him (Jai Kishan) in view of his finding that the impugned order was without jurisdiction and void and the remedy of Narain Dass was to seek relief from the Tribunal constituted under the Displaced Persons (Debt Adjustment) Act, 1951 or through filing suit for possession in civil court. Civil Court was found to have jurisdiction as the civil Court's duty was to see that the order passed by any authority constituted under an Act of Legislature was within the four-corners of that Act and not beyond the four- corners of that Act. It was found "whether the mortgagee was entitled to possession of the land allotted is a matter which could not be decided under any provisions of the Act". Plaintiff's suit was found within time. Plaintiff's suit for mere declaration without consequential relief was found to be maintainable. It was found that the impugned order was without jurisdiction as there is no provision in the Act which authorized the delivery of possession of the land allotted to a displaced person, to the mortgagee of the land left behind in Pakistan.