UNION OF INDIA Vs. RANA HIMAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal and has been directed against the decision dated 5th March, 1968 of the District Judge, Kangra, whereby, after confirming the decision of the Senior Sub-Judge, Kangra, he has decreed the suit of the plaintiff Rana Himal Chand for declaration to the effect that he is in cultivatory possession as owner of disputed land situate in Tikas Gankhetar and Kasba of mauza Baijnath in the tehshil of Palampur.

(2.) The plaintiff came to Court with the allegations, that the disputed Khasra numbers situate in the respective Tikas were allotted to him by the Custodian in, lieu of certain land which belonged to him and which he had to leave in Pakistan. The quasi-allotment was made on 14-8-49 while permanent allotment was made on 18-2-57. The plaintiff came in actual possession and started cultivating the disputed land. However, in the revenue papers the entry, "Gair Mumkin Abadi" was made which, according to the plaintiff, was a wrong entry. Subsequently on 24-6-1969, upon a report of Naib-Tehsildar (Rehabilitation), the Chief Settlement Commissioner, while exercising powers under Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) cancelled the allotment that existed in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter the defendant Union of India acting through its officers, ordered for re-auction of the disputed land. Hence the suit was brought for declaration that the plaintiff is owner in possession and that the defendant be restrained from auctioning the disputed land.

(3.) The defendant contested, inter alia, on the allegation that Section 36 of the Act barred the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. According to the defendant, the suit related to a matter which the Central Government or any officer or authority appointed under the Act was empowered by or under the Act to determine. As such it was pleaded that no relief could be granted to the plaintiff. This contention was repelled by the learned Senior Sub-Judge and it was held that the Chief Settlement Commissioner could not cancel the allotment as there was no finding to the effect that the allotment was obtained by the plaintiff as a result of fraud, false representation or concealment of any material fact on his part. The suit was accordingly decreed for a declaration. The defendant came in appeal before the learned District Judge and the first appellate Court confirmed the findings of the learned Senior Sub-Judge. The defendant has thus come up in second appeal before this Court.