GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. PIAR KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jamadar Bir Singh predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 1 to 5 filed a suit for declaration that he was in possession of the land in dispute as owner with consequential relief that the appellants be restrained from interfering with his possession of the same.

(2.) Jamadar Bir Singh alleged that he migrated from village Kwankh, Tehsil and District Gujrat in West Pakistan, where he owned land in lieu of which he was allotted land in village Jalalpur, Tahsil Dasuya. The appellants and their father Bir Singh also belonged to the same village in West Pakistan. The father of the appellants had no land in Pakistan inasmuch as the land purchased by him there had been sold by him before the partition of the country, but still he was allotted land in village Jalalpur, Tahsil Dasuya. The father of the appellants somehow managed to take possession of the sale-deed of some land which he (Jamadar Bir Singh) had purchased in Pakistan and approached the Rehabilitation authorities for allotment of land in lieu thereof. The Rehabilitation authorities accepted his claim and consequently cancelled his (Jamadar Bir Singh) corresponding allotment and allotted land in lieu thereof to the father of the appellants. It was done by the Managing Officer on August 27, 1969. This order was challenged before the Chief Settlement Commissioner and again in the High Court but was upheld. The name of the father of the appellants was Bir Singh son of Nanak Singh son of Bela Singh whereas the name of the father of the respondents was Bir Singh son of Nanak Singh son of Chet Singh. The sale deed against which the benefit was allowed to the appellants' father was not in his favour. Jamadar Bir Singh further alleged that the order passed by the Rehabilitation authorities were illegal and bad and he continued to be in possession of the land as owner which had been cancelled by the Rehabilitation authorities.

(3.) The appellants contested the suit filed by Jamadar Bir Singh and raised a preliminary objection that the suit was barred under Section 36 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. The trial Court framed preliminary issues, and No. 1 reads :-