Prince Bus & Transport Co. Ltd. vs State of Punjab

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is plaintiff''s second appeal whose suit for declaration was decreed by the trial Court, but dismissed in appeal.

The suit property was declared evacuee property after proceedings under section 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, and was acquired by the Central Government under section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act). According to the scheme of the Act, the interest of an evacuee in the property stood extinguished after a notice was issued under section 12 of the Act. This property was sold in public auction to one Beli Ram of Kapurthala for a sum of Rs. 10,000/ on May 17, 1959. The sale certificate was issued in his favour on April 9, 1962, and the possession thereof was delivered to him. The aforesaid Beli Ram sold the same to the plaintiff for Rs. 12,000/ on July 21, 1963, vide sale deed, Exhibit P. 1. It was already in possession of the plaintiff since the partition of the country. Prior thereto, it was used as a Bus Stand of the State Transport Cooperative Society, Kapurthala. The plaintiff after its purchase made improvements thereon to the tune of Rs. 26,293/. However, on November 13, 1967, the plaintiff was informed by the Assistant Custodian, Punjab and Haryana, Jullundur, that the suit property was released in favour of the Punjab Government by the Government of India vide order contained in the letter dated November 6, 1967. It was mentioned therein that the purchase money realised from the auction purchaser Beli Ram be refunded to him. On receipt of the said intimation, the plaintiff represented to the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Labour, Employment and Rehabilitation (Department of Rehabilitation) that the sale in favour of the plaintiff be not disturbed. Beli Ram, auction purchaser, at that time, had no right, title or interest in the suit property. However, the representation of the plaintiff was declined, hence the present suit on March 12, 1970, for the grant of the declaration that the aforementioned order of Central Government was illegal, without jurisdiction and ultra vires. The plaintiff continued to be the owner of the suit property from its auction purchaser. It also made improvements thereon. The suit was contested on behalf of the State of Punjab inter alia on the ground that the property, in dispute, comprised the building used as the booking office and workshop of the plaintiff. It, along with the adjoining mosque was the property of the Punjab State. It was denied that the plaintiff had incurred any expenses over the suit property. In any case, the defendants were not bound to compensate the plaintiff for the improvements, if any, made by it. It was also pleaded that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain such a suit inasmuch as the order of the Government of India restoring the property to the Punjab Government was a valid one. The trial Court found that the civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. It was further found that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property and that it had raised construction of the value of Rs. 26,293/ to which it was entitled in case the order of the Central Government was valid. In view of these findings, the plaintiff''s suit was decreed. In appeal, the learned District Judge reversed the findings of the trial Court on the question of the jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain the suit and the ownership of the plaintiff of the suit land. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the plaintiff''s suit was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, it has come up in this appeal to this Court.

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that once the property was sold in public auction by the Central Government under section 12 of the Act, it had gone out of the common pool and, therefore, no order could be passed by it subsequently for releasing the same in favour of the Punjab Government. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the civil Court had the jurisdiction to declare that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Kali Ram v. Union of India, 1976 PLR 475; Lila Krishan v. Union of India, 1970 PLR 719 and Prem Krishna v. M/s. Krishinchand Chellaram, (1969) 1 U.J. (SC) 125. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State of Punjab submitted that in view of sections 24, 33 and 36 of the Act, the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and the view taken by the lower appellate Court in this behalf was correct.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the case law cited at the bar, I am of the considered opinion that if the property, in question, had ceased to be the evacuee property or a part of the compensation pool on the date the action for dispossession was taken, the authorities under the Act had no jurisdiction to do so. The property ceases to be the evacuee property and goes out of the compensation pool when it is sold and the title is conferred on the purchaser by the issue of a sale certificate. The Rehabilitation authorities cease to have any jurisdiction in respect of that property thereafter.

As regards the jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain the suit, it was held in Kali Ram''s case (supra), that the provisions of section 36 of the Act would be no bar to the maintainability of the declaratory suit and for the granting of the relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. No judgment taking a contrary view has been cited as the bar.

Consequently, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are set aside and that of the trial Court decreeing the plaintiff''s suit are restored with costs.